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 value by explaining that suggestions can be accepted to create topics or rejected to dismiss them, which provides context on the tool's role in a workflow, but doesn't detail rate limits, auth needs, or pagination behavior beyond what annotations cover.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and follow with actionable context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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, rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose and usage context without needing to explain parameters or return values, which are handled by structured fields, making it well-rounded for the agent's needs.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., project_id uses env var if omitted, limit range 1-10000). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage without extra value.

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 'suggested topics for a Peec AI project', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_topics' by focusing on suggestions rather than existing topics, and from 'list_prompt_suggestions' by specifying topic suggestions.

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 when to use this tool: to get topic suggestions that can be accepted or rejected. It implies usage for project planning but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the distinction from 'list_topics' is evident.

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