civitai-mcp-ultimate

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description's burden is reduced. It adds useful context about what the tool returns ('summary statistics') and parameter usage, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific statistics are included.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the next two efficiently explain parameter usage without any 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 has comprehensive annotations and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context for a read-only statistical tool. It explains what the tool does and parameter semantics well, though it could benefit from mentioning what types of statistics are included or linking to the output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'requester' filters by workflow/task ID and 'since' uses ISO 8601 timestamps to count entries after a specific time. This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 ('Get') and resource ('summary statistics from the TRAIL content log'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_trail', which appears to be a related tool for accessing trail data rather than statistics.

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 like 'get_trail' or other sibling tools. It mentions parameters but doesn't explain the context or scenarios where this statistical summary would be preferred over raw trail data access.

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