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 useful context about the optional 'key' parameter based on document location, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second efficiently explains the optional parameter condition. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary context.

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 (list operation with 2 parameters), rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It clarifies the optional key condition, which is helpful. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values (e.g., comment format), leaving a minor gap.

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 marginal value by clarifying the condition under which 'key' is optional, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or semantic details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('List all comments') and resource ('on a document'), with additional details about what's included ('including replies and resolution status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'post_comment' (create) and 'resolve_comment' (modify) by focusing on retrieval only.

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 about when the 'key' parameter is optional ('if the document is in this MCP server's local store'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'post_comment' or 'resolve_comment', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the optional key.

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