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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions return types (dict on failure, list on success) which is helpful, but does not specify pagination behavior, caching, or status values. It is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise with separate Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. However, it could be shortened by removing redundant phrasing, but overall it is well-structured and not verbose.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and return types. However, it lacks context about how this tool fits into the workflow (e.g., polling for completion), and the return structure is only vaguely described as a list of dicts without field details.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'page' parameter as pagination for the transcription list, with a default of the most recent page. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default, though it could be more detailed about page size or offset.

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 '書き起こしの状態一覧を取得します' (get list of transcription statuses), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like START_TRANSCRIPTION_JOB or SHOW_TRANSCRIPTION_RESULT by focusing on statuses.

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 SHOW_AVAILABLE_FILES or SHOW_TRANSCRIPTION_RESULT. It does not mention prerequisites, frequency of polling, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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 full burden. It discloses read-only behavior (listing files) and formatting constraints (recognized formats), but contradicts itself with a 'specified directory' that has no corresponding parameter. Missing details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

Three sentences cover the main purpose and two constraints. However, the contradiction about the directory weakens the structure, as it adds confusion without earning its place.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description fails to explain the return format or structure. The tool has no parameters but implies a dependency on a directory, which is not addressed. Given the complexity (no parameters) and missing output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. However, it inaccurately implies a directory parameter exists, which misleads the agent about invocation requirements.

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 it returns a list of audio/video files available to the mocoVoice MCP server, specifying that only recognized formats are returned. However, it mentions a 'specified directory' as a constraint, but the input schema has no parameters, creating confusion about how the directory is determined.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like SHOW_AVAILABLE_FORMATS or START_TRANSCRIPTION_JOB. The description implies usage for listing files but lacks context or alternatives.

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 must disclose behavior. It states the tool 'returns' formats, indicating a read-only operation with no side effects. No further behavioral traits (e.g., security, rate limits) are needed for this trivial tool. The description is fully transparent about its action.

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 short sentence that conveys complete meaning without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 trivial complexity (no inputs, no side effects, no output schema), the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what it will get: the list of supported formats. No additional context is necessary.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). Following guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are 0 parameters. The description adds no param info, but none is needed.

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 returns a list of supported audio/video file formats from the mocoVoice MCP server. It uses a specific verb ('返却する' meaning 'return') and a specific resource ('音声・動画ファイル形式'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that handle transcription jobs or file listings.

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 implies usage when one needs to know supported formats, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checking formats vs. starting a job). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are included. For a simple informational tool, this is adequate but lacks proactive direction.

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, the description carries the burden of transparency. It notes the return type (error or result) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The behavior is minimally described.

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 short and to the point, but the formatting with Args and Returns sections is slightly non-standard for MCP descriptions. It is mostly concise and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the basic operation. However, it lacks context on prerequisites, error conditions, and expected state of the transcription, which would aid completeness.

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 0% coverage for the transcription_id parameter. The description adds context by stating it is a UUID, but does not explain where to obtain it, any format constraints, or potential values. This provides some value but is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 retrieves and displays a transcription. While the purpose is specific, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like CHECK_TRANSCRIPTION_STATUSES or SHOW_AVAILABLE_FILES, though the distinctions are somewhat implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., transcription job completion) or when not to use it.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool explains functions, which is a read-only, non-destructive behavior. Adequate for a simple informative 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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the simple purpose.

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 lack of output schema, the description does not specify the format or content of the explanation (e.g., whether it returns a list or text). Slightly incomplete for full context, but adequate for a basic help 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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so baseline 4 applies. The description need not add parameter info.

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 states it explains functions of the mocoVoice MCP server, which clarifies the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform specific actions like starting transcription jobs or checking statuses.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. As a help tool, usage is implied for getting an overview, but no exclusions or context about when not to use it is provided.

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?

The description states the tool starts a job and returns a message, but lacks behavioral details such as whether it is destructive, expected duration, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but is minimal.

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 extremely concise, using a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the main action is front-loaded without unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters, and return. However, it omits potential error conditions, prerequisites, and does not leverage the context of sibling tools to clarify when to use this 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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains 'path' as the file path to transcribe and 'language' with its default value ('ja'). This compensates for the schema having no descriptions, providing clarity on parameter usage.

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: starting a transcription job for a specified file. It uses a specific verb ('起動する') and resource ('書き起こしジョブ'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like CHECK_TRANSCRIPTION_STATUSES, relying on the name alone for distinction.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., file must exist or be available). It only implies usage when wanting to start a job.

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