mdshare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about the optionality of 'key' based on document location, which isn't captured in annotations. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but with good annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 read-only, non-destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral nuance. The only minor gap is lack of detail on return format (e.g., what 'edit history' structure looks like), but annotations provide safety context.

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 both parameters. The description adds semantic context about 'key' being optional for local documents, but this is already implied in the schema's description. No additional parameter meaning is provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 specific action ('Get the edit history') and resource ('of a document'), with detailed scope ('who edited, when, and via what'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_document' (which reads content) or 'list_my_documents' (which lists documents).

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'If the document is in this MCP server's local store, 'key' is optional.' This tells the agent when the key parameter can be omitted, which is crucial for correct invocation. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the guidance is complete for this tool's context.

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