IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (indicating potential mutation) and a title, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It doesn't explain what kebab-case transformation entails (e.g., lowercasing, hyphenating spaces/special chars), error handling, or side effects. However, it doesn't contradict annotations—'convert' aligns with readOnlyHint=false. The description adds little beyond annotations for a simple transformation tool.

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 with zero wasted words—'Convert text to kebab-case' directly conveys the core function. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, simple transformation), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format. With no output schema, the agent must infer the return value. For a basic tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the transformation specifics.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'text' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of input/output, character limits, or encoding specifics). For high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 'Convert text to kebab-case' clearly states the verb ('convert') and resource ('text'), specifying the transformation format ('kebab-case'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'convert_text_to_camelcase' and 'convert_text_to_pascalcase' by naming the target format, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'convert_text_to_snakecase' (implied by sibling 'text_snakecase') or other text transformation tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with similar tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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