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 reading logs with pagination via 'offset', but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data. 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 function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, 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 complexity of a log-reading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral constraints, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in a development context.

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 parameters like 'tab', 'lines', and 'offset'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying 'last N lines' and 'specific SST dev log tab', but does not provide additional syntax or format details, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('Read the last N lines') and resource ('from a specific SST dev log tab'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sst_get_events' or 'sst_get_invocations', which might also involve log-related data, so it falls short of a perfect 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sst_get_events' or 'sst_list_tabs'. The description implies usage for reading logs but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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