Pythia 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 mentions the tool performs a scan and returns a profile, but doesn't describe computational characteristics (e.g., execution time, resource usage), error handling, or what 'likelihood profile' entails structurally. This is inadequate for a tool with mathematical/statistical operations.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward scanning operation.

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 mathematical scanning tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'likelihood profile' contains, how results are formatted, or any computational constraints. The context signals indicate significant gaps in documentation.

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 50% (only 'fixedParams' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain what 'param' object represents or how 'fixedParams' should be structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial 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 action ('Perform a 1D parameter scan') and the outcome ('return likelihood profile'), which distinguishes it from general analysis tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'scan_2d' beyond the dimensionality implied in the name.

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 like 'scan_2d', 'compute_likelihood', or other analysis tools. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites for a 1D scan.

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