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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the scope limitation (only documents created by this MCP server), clarifies what happens on fresh installs or cleared stores (returns empty array), and notes what is excluded from results (admin credentials, web UI/API documents).

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, specifying return values and exclusions, and clarifying scope and edge cases. There is no redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description provides complete context. It explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details (scope, exclusions, edge cases), and return value semantics. No additional information is needed for an agent to understand and invoke this tool correctly.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately explains there are no parameters needed for this operation, which aligns with the empty input schema. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.

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 documents you've previously uploaded via this MCP server on this machine') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it only includes documents created by this MCP server, not via web UI or other clients. It explicitly names the returned fields and excludes admin credentials.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to help the user find and resume older documents without re-pasting admin URLs') and when not to use it ('Does NOT include documents created via the mdshare web UI or via direct API calls from other clients'). It also implicitly suggests alternatives like upload_markdown for new documents.

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