Pythia MCP

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 mentions what the tool does but doesn't describe output format, computational characteristics, error handling, or whether this is a read-only analysis versus something that modifies state. For a physics analysis tool with 4 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 perfectly concise - one sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and supported variants. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 physics analysis tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the analysis produces (coupling values? constraints? comparisons?), how results are formatted, or what users can expect from invoking this tool. The context demands more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions supported variants which relates to the 'type' parameter but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or interpretation of results.

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: analyzing Two-Higgs-Doublet Model parameters in terms of Higgs couplings. It specifies the resource (2HDM parameters) and action (analyze), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_singlet_extension' or 'compute_sm_predictions' beyond mentioning supported variants.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions supported variants but doesn't explain when to choose this over sibling tools like 'analyze_singlet_extension' for different models or 'compute_sm_predictions' for Standard Model comparisons.

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