Vaiz MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It hints at a state-changing action ('select') but doesn't clarify if this persists across sessions, requires permissions, affects other tools, or has side effects. No information on rate limits, errors, or output format is given, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely sets workspace context.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, but this brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication. It earns points for being direct, though it lacks the depth needed for full clarity.

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 likely role in setting workspace context (inferred from sibling tools like 'space_info'), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it fails to explain what 'selecting' entails operationally, what happens after selection, or how it integrates with other tools. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description doesn't mention any parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. However, with only one parameter ('spaceId'), the baseline is higher—the schema alone defines a required string, and the tool's purpose implies it's for identifying a space. The description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap but doesn't worsen it either, warranting a neutral score.

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 'Select a space to work with' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'select_space' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't explain what 'select' means operationally (e.g., sets context, activates, switches) or what 'work with' entails. While it mentions the resource ('space'), the verb is too vague to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'space_info' or 'list_spaces'.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a space ID from 'list_spaces'), exclusions (e.g., not for creating spaces), or comparisons to siblings like 'space_info' (for details) or 'list_spaces' (for listing). The phrase 'to work with' is too generic to imply specific contexts.

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