yade-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context with 'graceful' (implying clean shutdown vs immediate termination), but fails to explain side effects, final task states, or what the operation returns despite the existence of an output schema.

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 of six words that front-loads the core action. No words are wasted on tautology or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential action. However, it lacks context on interruption eligibility (can pending tasks be interrupted?) and post-interruption state that would help an agent handle the response 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (task_id is fully documented as returned by yade_execute_task). The description adds no explicit parameter guidance, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 when the schema already fully documents inputs.

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 provides a specific verb ('Request graceful interruption') and resource ('running YADE task'), clearly distinguishing it from execution or monitoring tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like yade_check_task_status or yade_execute_task in the text itself.

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 phrase 'graceful interruption of a running YADE task' implies when to use it (to stop an active task), but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative approaches (e.g., force kill vs graceful stop).

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