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 it 'List all available log tabs/files', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, how it handles errors, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output, which are important for an agent to operate effectively. This results in a score that reflects a bare-bones but not fully complete description.

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 one optional parameter 'stage' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'stage' means in context or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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 action ('List') and resource ('all available log tabs/files from SST dev'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling tools like 'sst_read_logs' or 'sst_get_events', which might also involve log-related operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and doesn't reference sibling tools like 'sst_read_logs' or 'sst_get_events' that might be related. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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