tactual-mcp

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses: read-only nature, idempotency ('static data'), parameter state ('no parameters'), and return structure ('array of {id, name, platform, description}'). It could improve by mentioning cache behavior or error conditions, but covers the critical safety and data properties.

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?

Well-structured with purpose first, followed by domain explanation, return format, behavioral properties, and usage workflow. Every sentence adds value—examples clarify AT profiles, the return structure documents the output schema absence, and the default profile note prevents redundant calls. No redundancy.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates comprehensively: it explains the domain (screen readers, platforms), data structure (navigation weights, vocabulary), return format (specific fields), and integration pattern (sibling tool usage). Complete for this complexity 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 tool has zero parameters (baseline 4). The description confirms 'no parameters' which aligns with the empty input schema, providing explicit confirmation that no arguments are expected or accepted.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('assistive-technology (AT) profiles'), clarifies the domain ('available for scoring'), and distinguishes from siblings by contrasting discovery (this tool) versus analysis (analyze_url, trace_path, analyze_pages).

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?

Explicitly describes the workflow ('Call once to discover valid profile IDs, then pass a profile ID to...') and names three specific sibling tools to use with the results. Also notes the default profile ('generic-mobile-web-sr-v0') for when this tool isn't used, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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