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 only states what the tool does ('Get history') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, requires specific permissions, or what format the history data returns. This leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, behavioral aspects, output format, or differentiation from siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond a basic understanding of its intent.

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 10 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond implying 'projectId' is needed (from 'specific project'). It doesn't explain what 'keys', 'excludeKeys', 'entityTypes', or other parameters mean, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Get history') and target resource ('activities in a specific project across the workspace'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project', 'get_task_history', or 'get_user_history', which also retrieve project-related or historical data, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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. With siblings like 'get_project' (for project details), 'get_task_history' (for task-specific history), and 'get_user_history' (for user activity), there's no indication of how this tool's scope differs or when it's the preferred choice, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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