Vaiz MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves information (a read operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on what 'detailed information' entails, which could be important for an agent to understand the return value. Without annotations or output schema, more context on the response structure would improve completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the input schema. A baseline of 4 is given as it correctly handles the absence of parameters without adding unnecessary details.

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 ('detailed information about current authenticated user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_member' or 'get_user_history', which could potentially provide overlapping user information.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'current authenticated user', suggesting it's for retrieving the logged-in user's details. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_member' (which might fetch other users) or 'get_user_history' (which might provide historical data).

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