BBQ MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by mentioning 'confidence levels' and 'accounts for factors like stalls', which helps the agent understand the tool's analytical nature and potential variability in outputs.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations and relevant examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the length is appropriate for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and examples, but could better address output behavior (e.g., format of time estimates with confidence levels) since no output schema exists. Still, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description lists parameters and provides examples that illustrate usage (e.g., mapping natural language to parameter values), but doesn't add significant semantic details beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 verb ('estimate') and resource ('total cooking time for a protein'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'bbq_calculate_rest_time' or 'bbq_get_target_temperature' by focusing on time estimation rather than rest periods or temperature targets.

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 through examples (e.g., 'How long for a 10 lb pork butt?'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bbq_get_cooking_guidance' or 'bbq_detect_stall'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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