SimBrief MCP Server

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 the plan_id parameter behavior but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when multiple aircraft match criteria. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first lists the data fields retrieved, the second explains parameter behavior. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. Minor deduction for slightly awkward phrasing ('Leave plan_id empty to get the latest dispatch').

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), one parameter with good semantic coverage in the description, and relatively simple functionality, the description is reasonably complete. It could benefit from more behavioral context but covers the essential purpose and parameter usage adequately for this complexity level.

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 description adds meaningful context about the plan_id parameter that isn't in the schema (0% coverage). It explains that leaving plan_id empty retrieves 'the latest dispatch,' providing crucial semantic information about default behavior. With only one parameter and good semantic clarification, this earns a strong score.

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 retrieves aircraft details including ICAO/IATA type codes, registration, engines, equipment codes, and passenger capacity. It specifies the resource (aircraft) and data fields, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_flight_summary or get_full_flight_plan which might also contain aircraft information.

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 some usage guidance by explaining when to leave plan_id empty ('to get the latest dispatch'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_flight_summary or get_full_flight_plan. It implies usage context but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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