Refactoring MCP

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 states the tool lists documents but does not specify if this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format is (though an output schema exists), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant or verbose language. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, output schema provided), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, output details) that would be helpful for an agent, especially since no annotations are present. The existence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter explanation in the description. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as the description appropriately does not include unnecessary param details, and the schema fully handles the lack of inputs.

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 ('List') and resource ('published Refactoring MCP guidance documents'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'refactoring_mcp_list_prompts' or 'refactoring_mcp_get_document', which would require specifying scope or format distinctions to achieve a score of 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not clarify if this should be used for browsing all documents versus using 'refactoring_mcp_get_document' for specific ones, or how it relates to 'refactoring_mcp_list_prompts'. The description lacks any context or exclusions for usage.

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