CONTAM MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully conveys the read-only nature through 'inspect' and adds valuable behavioral context by specifying 'last-known state' (implying potential staleness/caching). However, it omits error handling (what if the session isn't active?), side effects, and return format details.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. While 'Use this when you want to' is slightly wordier than a direct verb construction ('Inspects...'), it avoids redundancy and earns its place by establishing usage context.

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?

For a single-parameter inspection tool without output schema, the description adequately explains the core action but leaves gaps regarding error scenarios (inactive sessions) and return value structure. The 'last-known state' qualification adds necessary nuance, but without annotations or output schema, more behavioral detail would improve completeness.

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 0% description coverage for the required 'sessionId' parameter. While the description mentions 'active ContamX bridge session,' it fails to explicitly document the parameter (e.g., expected format, where to obtain the ID from start_contam_bridge_session, or constraints). With zero schema coverage, the description inadequately compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses specific verbs ('inspect') and resources ('metadata or last-known state of an active ContamX bridge session'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like start_contam_bridge_session and advance_contam_bridge_session by emphasizing read-only inspection versus lifecycle management, though it could explicitly name these contrasts.

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 phrase 'Use this when you want to...' provides basic contextual guidance for when to invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., 'do not use if you need to modify state') and fails to reference sibling alternatives like inspect_contam_project for different resource types.

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