Beep Boop 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 effectively describes key behaviors: the tool examines files, provides guidance, and can perform automatic cleanup with configurable thresholds. However, it doesn't specify what format the guidance takes, whether the operation is idempotent, or any rate limits/authentication requirements.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core functionality. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose ('checks the current work coordination status'), followed by implementation details ('by examining beep/boop files'), advisory function ('provides guidance on next steps'), and optional capability ('can automatically clean up stale boop files'). Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the main functionality and cleanup capability well, but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or what 'guidance on next steps' entails. Given the complexity and lack of structured output documentation, more detail would be beneficial.

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 already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about 'stale boop files older than a specified threshold' which relates to the maxAgeHours parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('checks', 'examining', 'provides guidance', 'clean up') and resources ('work coordination status', 'directory', 'beep/boop files'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_listener_status' by focusing on directory coordination rather than listener status, and from 'create_beep'/'update_boop' by being an inspection/cleanup tool rather than a creation/modification tool.

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 implies usage context ('checks current work coordination status', 'provides guidance on next steps') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions automatic cleanup of stale files as a capability, but doesn't provide clear guidance on when to enable this feature versus using other cleanup tools if they exist.

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