VNyan MCP reference guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It mentions that the same content is published as MCP resources, which is a behavioral alternative, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. As a read-only reference tool, the lack of such disclosure is less critical, but the description could add more context about the nature of the content (e.g., 'long-form' implies no mutation).

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes key details like the topic list and the omission behavior. While it could be slightly shorter, it is not verbose and every phrase adds value.

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?

Given that the tool is a read-only reference with a simple optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It tells the user what topics exist, how to list them, and notes the alternative resource access. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'topic' with enum values and a description. The description adds that omitting the parameter lists available topics and that content is also available as resources. With 100% schema description coverage, the description provides marginal additional meaning, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 it provides 'Long-form reference documentation' and enumerates the specific topics (e.g., node-authoring, bone-names). This distinguishes it from action-oriented sibling tools like vnyan_trigger or vnyan_bone. The verb 'read' is implied, and it covers a distinct resource purpose.

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?

It explains that omitting 'topic' lists available topics, providing a clear usage path. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the alternative MCP resource access method (vnyan://guide/<topic>), though that is mentioned. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are given, but the overall usage context is clear.

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