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. It mentions the scope ('YOUR workspace') and excludes system documentation, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (though 'limit' param hints at it), or what the output looks like (no output schema). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope efficiently, and the second adds a critical exclusion. It's front-loaded with the main action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a scope exclusion but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and output format. For a search tool that likely returns varied results, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to interpret and use it effectively.

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. It doesn't explain any parameters beyond implying 'entityType' through the listed examples (tasks, projects, etc.) and 'query' through the search context. Parameters like 'limit' and the enum values for 'entityType' are undocumented in the description. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema, failing to fully address the coverage gap.

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 'search' and specifies the target resources ('entities in YOUR workspace' with examples like tasks, projects, users). It distinguishes from system documentation searches with the explicit exclusion 'NOT system documentation!', though it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling search tools (none appear in the sibling list). The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 implies usage for searching workspace entities versus system documentation, providing some contextual guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_' tools (e.g., list_tasks, list_projects) or 'get_' tools for specific items, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the documentation note. The guidance is present but incomplete.

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