Refactoring MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral details. It mentions 'persist the output', hinting at storage or creation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects, rate limits, or what 'persist' entails (e.g., where saved, overwrite risks). This is inadequate for a tool that likely creates persistent data.

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 key information ('generate a protocol or governance prompt') and avoids redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it appropriately sized with zero waste.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, nested 'options' object) and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and context vs siblings. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It mentions 'protocol or governance prompt', aligning with the 'type' enum, but doesn't explain 'options' or their purpose. With 2 parameters (one required, one with enum) and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as it partially addresses 'type' but leaves 'options' unexplained.

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 ('generate') and resource ('protocol or governance prompt'), specifying it uses 'Refactoring MCP builders' and 'persist the output'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'refactoring_mcp_get_prompt' (retrieval) and 'refactoring_mcp_list_prompts' (listing), but doesn't explicitly contrast them, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 scenarios for 'protocol' vs 'governance' types, prerequisites, or when to choose other tools like 'refactoring_mcp_get_prompt' for retrieval. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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