Vaiz MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the document doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides crucial sibling differentiation. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter read operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides adequate purpose and usage guidance but lacks details about return values, error handling, and parameter specifics. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in behavioral and parameter documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. The description mentions 'USER document' which provides some context for the documentId parameter, but doesn't explain what format the ID should be, where to find it, or any constraints beyond the schema's minLength:1. With one undocumented parameter, this minimal context is insufficient.

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's purpose with 'Get detailed information about a USER document in workspace' - a specific verb (Get) and resource (USER document). It distinguishes from the sibling 'read_resource' by specifying USER vs SYSTEM scope, though it doesn't differentiate from other document-related siblings like 'get_document_comments' or 'get_document_history'.

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 vs alternatives: 'For SYSTEM help, use read_resource!' This clearly distinguishes between USER document retrieval and SYSTEM resource reading, giving the agent a clear decision rule for tool selection.

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