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 does reveal that this tool performs configuration changes ('add or update its configuration'), which implies mutation/write operations, but doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. It mentions 'defaults are fetched/merged' for the command parameter, which adds useful context about default behavior.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the tool's function, specifying prerequisites, and clarifying parameter usage. There's no redundant information, and key guidance is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 configuration mutation tool with 5 parameters (including nested objects) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose and parameter relationships well, but lacks details about behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or what constitutes successful configuration. Given the complexity, more complete behavioral disclosure would be beneficial.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining the mutual exclusivity between client_type and config_file_path and clarifying that server_id comes from search_mcp_servers, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('enables', 'add or update') and resources ('capabilities from a specific MCP server/tool', 'configuration in the client application'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_mcp_servers (which finds servers) and remove_mcp_server_config (which removes configurations).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it specifies that server_id should be 'obtained from search_mcp_servers results' and provides clear alternatives between client_type and config_file_path ('Provide EITHER client_type OR config_file_path'). This gives the agent concrete prerequisites and decision criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's purpose and usage context well, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, response format, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). The description doesn't contradict any annotations, but could provide more operational 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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently provide usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete for its purpose and usage. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more details on what the retrieved information includes or behavioral aspects, leaving a minor gap in full contextual understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 specific action ('Retrieves detailed information') and resource ('about a specific MCP server/tool from the registry'), including what information is retrieved ('manifest and installation details'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying this is for getting detailed information after searching, not for searching, adding, removing, or streaming.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool ('after finding a tool with search_mcp_servers to get more information') and when to use an alternative ('or directly use add_mcp_server_config to install it'). This gives clear guidance on the tool's role in the workflow relative to its siblings.

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

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 clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Removes'), which is essential. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether the removal is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects running instances, or what happens if the specified server_id doesn't exist. The description provides basic operational context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides crucial parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The information is front-loaded with the primary action immediately clear.

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 destructive operation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It clearly states the destructive nature and parameter relationships, but lacks information about what happens after removal (success/failure indicators), error conditions, or system impacts. The description covers the basics but leaves important contextual gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds some value by clarifying the exclusive relationship between client_type and config_file_path ('Provide EITHER... OR...') and providing context about client applications, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the comprehensive schema descriptions already provide for all 4 parameters.

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 specific action ('Removes') and resource ('configuration for a specific MCP server/tool from the client application'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_mcp_server_config (adds), get_mcp_server_details (reads), search_mcp_servers (searches), and stream_mcp_events (streams). The description explicitly identifies what gets removed (server configuration) and from where (client applications).

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 clear context about when to use this tool (to remove a specific MCP server configuration) and specifies the exclusive parameter options (client_type OR config_file_path). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like modifying instead of removing, or which sibling tools might be complementary (e.g., using get_mcp_server_details first to verify what to remove).

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a discovery/search operation (not a mutation), establishes it as a mandatory first step for capability expansion, and provides practical examples of use cases. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no results are found.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the primary function, providing mandatory usage rules with examples, and reinforcing it as the required first step. There's no wasted text, and the most critical information (the MUST directive) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It clearly explains the tool's role in the MCP ecosystem, when to use it, and provides concrete examples. The main gap is the lack of output information (what format results come in, pagination, etc.), but given this is a discovery tool, the description adequately covers its core purpose and usage.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query for keywords, tag for filtering). The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, though it implies the 'query' parameter should contain relevant keywords for capabilities being sought. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 tool's purpose: 'discovering and accessing new tools, methods, features, or capabilities' through the MCP Finder registry. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'MCP servers', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add/remove/config operations. The description explicitly positions this as the primary discovery tool.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'If a user asks for a tool, method, feature, or capability that you do not currently have, you MUST use this tool... This is the required first step to expand your available tools.' It gives concrete examples (browser tool, OCR, filesystem access) and distinguishes when to use this tool versus alternatives (when capabilities are missing from current toolset).

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

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. It mentions monitoring and returning a summary, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a blocking call, how events are delivered (e.g., streaming vs. batch), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a real-time monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 appropriately sized with two clear sentences: one for the monitoring action and one for the return value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be slightly more specific about the summary format to enhance clarity without adding bulk.

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 complexity of real-time event monitoring, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of the summary), how events are aggregated, or potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption during streaming). For a tool with behavioral implications and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (duration, filter, since) with their types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('monitor', 'returns') and resources ('real-time events from the MCPfinder registry'), explicitly listing event types ('new tool registrations, updates, and status changes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are about server configuration management) by focusing on event monitoring rather than server operations.

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. While it implies real-time monitoring, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., whether the registry must be active) or compare it to other event-related tools (none are listed among siblings). There's no mention of when not to use it or what scenarios it's best suited for.

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