paraph-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it lists with optional filters. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination behavior beyond what's in schema, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. Significant gaps remain for a tool with 3 parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list operation with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'signing requests' are in this context, what the return format looks like, or provide behavioral context needed for proper use. The agent would need to guess about important aspects of the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 3 parameters with descriptions, defaults, and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'optional filters' which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('signing requests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_request' (singular) and 'create_request' (write operation). However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., 'all' or 'accessible') which would make it a perfect 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_requests' versus 'get_request' (for single request details) or 'list_templates' (for templates instead of requests). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for filtering are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.