SimBrief MCP Server

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. It mentions that leaving 'plan_id' empty retrieves the latest dispatch, which adds some context about default behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, which are essential for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key usage note. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 likely covers return values), one parameter with low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use the parameter, but it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like safety or performance, which are missing due to the lack of annotations.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage and only lists 'Plan Id' as a parameter. It explains that 'plan_id' can be left empty to get the latest dispatch, clarifying its optional nature and default behavior. Since there's only one parameter and the schema provides minimal information, the description compensates well, though it could specify the format or constraints of 'plan_id' for a higher 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 'alternate airport details' including specific data points (ICAO code, planned runway, elevation, weather, alternate navlog), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_weather' or 'get_navlog' that might provide overlapping information, preventing a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Leave plan_id empty to get the latest dispatch,' which suggests when to omit the parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_weather' or 'get_navlog,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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