Refactoring MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Fetch', implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'by key' entails (e.g., is it a unique identifier?). The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to the core purpose. No wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, with no annotations and low schema description coverage, it lacks completeness for operational use—e.g., it doesn't clarify the document types or usage context. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but gaps in behavioral and parameter details keep it at an adequate level.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions 'by key', which hints that the 'document' parameter acts as a key, but the schema already defines it as an enum of document types. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what each enum value represents or how the key is used. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of added semantic value reduces it to 3.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'Refactoring MCP document by key', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'refactoring_mcp_get_prompt' or 'refactoring_mcp_get_bundle', which likely fetch different types of resources. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. With siblings like 'refactoring_mcp_list_documents' and 'refactoring_mcp_get_prompt', there's no indication of when fetching a document is preferred over listing or fetching prompts. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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