aiprox-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains what gets returned ('full spec including all required and optional fields'), which is valuable given the lack of an output schema. However, it omits operational details like idempotency, caching behavior, or whether this is a safe read-only operation.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence identifies the action and resource; the second explains the return value content and purpose. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials: what the tool retrieves and the scope of the returned data. It appropriately compensates for the missing output schema by describing the return content.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters. According to the scoring rubric, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 retrieves the 'AIProx agent manifest specification' using the specific verb 'Get'. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings (get_agent, list_agents) by targeting the specification/schema rather than agent instances, and links to register_agent by mentioning it's used 'for registering agents'.

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 implied usage context by stating the spec is for 'registering agents', hinting it should be used before registration. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_agent, or prerequisites for invoking the tool.

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