SINT Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature by using 'Show' and lists specific data points returned, but does not mention behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 front-loads the purpose and details the scope without waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand 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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for a status-checking tool. It specifies what information is returned, though it could benefit from mentioning the output format or any system dependencies. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally cover return values, but it partially compensates by listing data points.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.

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 specific action ('Show') and resource ('SINT MCP status') with detailed scope ('connected servers, agent identity, queue size, and system health'). It distinguishes from siblings like sint__servers (likely lists servers only) and sint__interface_status (likely interface-specific status).

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 implies usage context for checking overall system status, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like sint__interface_status or sint__servers. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the context is clear enough for basic differentiation.

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