Vaiz MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For an 11-parameter query tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves to communicate the tool's function without redundancy.

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?

For a complex query tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter interactions, filtering logic, return format, or error handling. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'specific user' (mapping to memberId) and 'current workspace' (contextual), but doesn't explain the purpose or usage of the other 10 parameters like keys, excludeKeys, entityTypes, or date ranges. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 all activities performed by a specific user in the current workspace'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_task_history or get_project_history by specifying user activities across all entity types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_document_history or similar tools beyond scope.

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 like get_task_history, get_project_history, or get_document_history. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases. The agent must infer usage from the description alone without explicit direction.

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