Flag 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 explains the interaction pattern (blocking request for user input, option-based responses) but lacks technical behavioral traits such as timeout behavior, session persistence, or data handling. It covers 'how to use' but omits 'what happens under the hood' details expected for a user-input tool.

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 uses clear structural headers (Usage method, Usage tips, When to use) but is verbose due to extensive bilingual content. The Chinese examples, while helpful for behavior modeling, make the description longer than necessary for agent consumption, and the language mixing reduces structural coherence.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on behavioral guidance rather than return values. It comprehensively covers invocation patterns and option structuring, though it would benefit from mentioning timeout handling or error conditions for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by specifying in the Chinese text that predefined_options should include a recommended choice with rationale and an 'end' option, providing substantive usage guidance for parameter population that the raw schema lacks.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool requests interactive feedback and supports text/image attachments. However, the extensive Chinese instructions, while useful, create a bilingual structure that slightly reduces immediate clarity for agents parsing primarily English content.

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 Chinese text under '什么时候使用' (when to use) provides explicit when/when-not guidance, specifically stating to invoke this tool when work is completed instead of directly ending the process, and when encountering decision points requiring user confirmation. It also explicitly references '使用方式' (usage method) and '使用技巧' (usage tips) for detailed alternatives.

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