throw_a_stoneThrow a stone into the sea from the steep pebble shore on the western edge of campus, where waves break on the shingle and gulls call, and see how it goes. Nothing is stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dog | No | Optional: bring the campus dog along (it lives at the doghouse; see visit_the_dog). Pass the name you gave it, or "yes". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / dogAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: bring the campus dog along (it lives at the doghouse; see visit_the_dog). Pass the name you gave it, or \"yes\".",
+ "maxLength": 24,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the reassurance 'Nothing is stored,' which corroborates rather than merely repeats. Beyond that it discloses nothing about outcomes, side effects, or what a caller receives.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence keeps the verb first, which is good. But the middle is padded with scene-setting ('waves break on the shingle and gulls call') and 'see how it goes' spends words without conveying information.
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 one-optional-param, no-output-schema, read-only whimsy tool, the description is roughly adequate. Still, 'see how it goes' is the only signal about the result, and the relationship to place_a_stone is left entirely unexplained.
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% — the 'dog' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the visit_the_dog cross-reference. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb and setting are concrete (throw a stone into the sea from the western pebble shore), so the action itself is clear. But 'see how it goes' leaves the outcome undefined, and nothing distinguishes this from the sibling place_a_stone, so an agent can't tell what this actually produces.
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?
There is no statement of when to pick this over the closely-named sibling place_a_stone, nor any condition for invoking it. The only guidance is scenic atmosphere, not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.