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 states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that fetches data.

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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 the complexity of retrieving Lambda invocations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or dependencies, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema fully documents the 'timeoutMs' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the timeout affects the retrieval process. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('recent Lambda function invocations') with specific source ('from SST dev'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sst_get_events' or 'sst_read_logs', which might also retrieve related data from SST.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sst_get_events' or 'sst_read_logs'. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no explicit usage instructions.

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