mcp-server-peecai

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the default limit (100), explains the effect of omitting date filters (returns all chats), and describes the return format. This enhances the agent's understanding of practical usage.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states purpose and limit, second gives usage recommendation, third specifies return format and filter behavior. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (9 parameters, list operation), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral traits (limit, filter effects), and return format, leaving schema details to structured fields. No critical gaps exist for agent understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description mentions 'limit' and 'date filters' but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. It provides some high-level guidance ('Recommended: use date filters') but no additional parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('AI chat interactions tracked by Peec AI'), specifies what it returns ('chat IDs, prompt/model refs, and dates'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on chat interactions rather than brands, models, or other entities. It's specific about scope and output format.

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 clear context for usage ('Recommended: use date filters to scope results') and warns about behavior without filters ('Without date filters, returns all chats'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different filtering needs.

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