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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves history but doesn't describe what 'history' entails (e.g., list of revisions, timestamps, authors, changes), whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), any rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by directly stating what the tool does. There's no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly while being appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 1 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the history output looks like, how parameters filter results, or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with rich filtering options and no structured guidance elsewhere, more context is needed to make it fully usable by an AI agent.

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%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond implying 'documentId' is needed for a specific document. It doesn't explain what 'keys', 'excludeKeys', 'createdBy', or date ranges mean in context, nor does it clarify the 'limit' parameter's role. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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 ('history of changes for a specific document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_document' (which retrieves current content) and 'get_project_history' (which is for projects rather than documents). However, it doesn't specify the format or granularity of the history (e.g., revisions, audit trail, version list), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'get_document_history' over 'get_project_history' (for project-level changes) or 'get_user_history' (for user activity), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing document access. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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