mcp-builder-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool 'Uses stored analysis from step 1' if inputs aren't provided, which adds useful behavioral context about state management. However, it doesn't cover other traits like error handling, performance, or side effects, leaving gaps for a tool in a multi-step workflow.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the step context, but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'step 1' and 'step 2') and could be more streamlined. Sentences like 'Completes workflow step 2.' don't add significant value, reducing efficiency.

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 complexity of a multi-step workflow tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers usage sequencing and return values at a high level, but lacks details on parameter usage, error cases, and full behavioral context, making it only minimally adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It mentions 'analysis' and 'openapi_input' as options to provide, but doesn't explain their formats, purposes, or the 'input_type' parameter at all. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to adequately document the parameters.

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 this is 'Step 2 of 6' in a workflow and that it 'get[s] Trimble Agentic Ecosystem context and prompts,' which specifies the verb (get) and resource (context and prompts). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'propose_endpoint_bundles' or 'validate_openapi' beyond mentioning their step numbers, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use after validate_openapi' and 'Requires step 1 (validate_openapi).' It also mentions alternatives for input ('provide analysis or openapi_input') and specifies the next step ('Next: run propose_endpoint_bundles (step 3)'), making usage context very clear.

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