MCP-SST

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'discover' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, how it interacts with servers (e.g., network calls, permissions), or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'discover' entails (e.g., returns a list, status details), how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool that likely involves system interaction, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'directory' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why one might specify a directory or how it affects the discovery process. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('discover') and resource ('running SST dev servers and available stages'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sst_get_status' or 'sst_list_tabs', which might have overlapping discovery functions.

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. With sibling tools like 'sst_get_status' and 'sst_list_tabs' that might relate to server or stage information, there's no indication of when this discovery tool is preferred or what specific scenarios it addresses.

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