Knowledge MCP Server

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 effectively describes key behaviors: 'Returns null if at end,' 'Maintains reading context,' 'Efficient sequential access,' and the return structure. However, it lacks details on error handling or performance characteristics.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, features, instructions, exclusions, returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It is slightly verbose in the 'You should' section but overall front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and a detailed return structure. It compensates well for the lack of structured data, though it could mention error cases or dependencies.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'Use current_chapter_title OR current_index' but not explaining the relationship further. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get the next chapter after the current one in sequence,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_chapter' (specific chapter access) and 'list_chapters' (bulk listing) by focusing on sequential progression.

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 explicit guidance with a 'When to use this tool' section listing four scenarios and a 'DO NOT use when' section with three clear exclusions. It distinguishes usage from alternatives like 'get_chapter' for non-sequential access, offering comprehensive context.

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