MCP Server Deployment Demo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic operation ('Adds two integers') and does not reveal any behavioral traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, side effects, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence: 'Adds two integers.' There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 low complexity (simple integer addition) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and parameter semantics, which are important even for simple tools. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is limited.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the operation without explaining what 'x' and 'y' represent, their constraints, or examples. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: 'Adds two integers.' It specifies the verb ('Adds') and the resource/operation ('two integers'), making it unambiguous. However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, which prevents a perfect score of 5.

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. It simply states what the tool does without any context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of usage instructions limits its helpfulness for an AI agent in decision-making.

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