AutoBot 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. It states it 'gets' actions, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, or what 'non-data actions' entails (e.g., whether it includes destructive intents). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates key information without redundancy.

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 an output schema (implied by 'Returns' in description), the description doesn't need to detail return values, and with one parameter, it covers basics. However, for a tool querying 'actions' in a system with potential complexity, more context on what 'non-data actions' means or usage prerequisites would enhance completeness, especially with no annotations.

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 adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'package_name' by explaining it's 'the name of the package to get actions for', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's basic title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., string patterns).

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 ('Get') and resource ('non-data actions from Activity Resolver Table for a package'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_packages' or 'execute_script', which could have overlapping domains, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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, such as other 'get_' tools or how it relates to actions in the context of the sibling list. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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