Memory Bank MCP Server

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. '创建新规则' only indicates a creation action but reveals nothing about required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this description provides minimal behavioral insight beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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?

While technically concise with just three Chinese characters, this is an example of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load important information or provide any structured explanation. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase doesn't provide enough value to justify its existence as a helpful description.

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 this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'rules' are in this context, what happens after creation, error conditions, or any behavioral aspects. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata, leaving the agent with minimal guidance for proper tool invocation.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, with all 5 parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter info in the description, which applies here.

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 '创建新规则' (Create new rule) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_rule' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what kind of rule this creates (automation rule, business rule, validation rule) or what system/context these rules operate in. While it clearly indicates a creation action, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from other rule-related tools like 'update_rule' or 'delete_rule' beyond the basic verb.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a project for non-global rules), when to choose this over 'update_rule', or what happens after creation. With sibling tools like 'delete_rule', 'get_rule', 'list_rules', and 'update_rule' available, the lack of any contextual guidance is a significant omission.

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