wanderlog-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses authentication requirement ('authenticated user's account'), scope of data returned ('owned and shared-with-you'), return format details ('compact list with title, dates, place count, and trip_key'), and specific extraction instruction for downstream use. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, but covers essential behavioral aspects.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and scope, second provides usage guidance, third gives implementation detail. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with key information.

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 simple list tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: covers purpose, authentication, scope, return format, and usage guidance. It doesn't explain the exact structure of returned data or error conditions, but provides enough context for effective use given the tool's complexity.

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 the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the parameter documentation 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 ('Lists') and resource ('all Wanderlog trips'), specifies scope ('in the authenticated user's account'), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns trip_key needed by wanderlog_get_trip and wanderlog_search_places. It goes beyond a simple restatement of the name/title.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the user mentions a trip by name but you don't have its trip_key yet') and names specific alternative tools (wanderlog_get_trip, wanderlog_search_places) that require the key obtained from this tool. Provides clear context for tool selection.

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