Nerdearla Agenda MCP Server

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 describes the tool's behavior by stating it returns cache status information (last update, validity time, statistics), which implies it's a read-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, and the second elaborates on the specific information returned. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient with no wasted words.

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 complexity (simple read operation with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what information is returned but doesn't cover format, error handling, or integration context. For a tool with no structured metadata, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret the results.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what the schema provides.

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 what the tool does: 'Obtiene información sobre el estado del cache de datos de la agenda' (Gets information about the status of the agenda data cache). It specifies the verb ('obtiene información') and resource ('cache de datos de la agenda'), and lists specific details provided (last update time, validity time remaining, cache statistics). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are all about talks/topics, not cache management.

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 prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given that all sibling tools are focused on talk/topic data retrieval, this tool's purpose (cache status) is distinct, but the description doesn't help an agent understand when cache information is needed versus actual data queries.

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