MCP-SST

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get recent events' and implies a streaming/listening operation with a timeout, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes 'recent'. For a tool that likely interacts with a development event stream, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves events from a development stream. It doesn't explain the format or content of returned events, potential side effects, or how 'recent' is defined. For a tool with two parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents the parameters, so the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also doesn't provide additional context like examples or constraints.

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 ('Get') and resource ('recent events from the SST dev event stream'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies 'recent events' which provides some scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sst_get_invocations' or 'sst_read_logs' that might also retrieve event-related data.

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 sibling tools like 'sst_get_invocations' or 'sst_read_logs', nor does it specify prerequisites, ideal contexts, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.

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