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 reads content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds specific usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete by covering purpose and a usage example. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or output format, which are important for a read operation. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps in context.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'resourceName' should include a name, with an example for knowledge base articles. This provides some context beyond the schema's basic type and constraints. However, it doesn't fully detail parameter semantics like format rules or examples beyond the prefix case, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 ('Read') and resource ('content of a specific MCP resource by name'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_resources' by focusing on reading a specific resource rather than listing them. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other read-like tools such as 'get_document' or 'get_task', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for reading a specific resource by name, with an explicit example for knowledge base articles using the 'vaiz-help-' prefix. This helps guide usage in that specific scenario. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'list_resources' for browsing) or name alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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