SimBrief MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that leaving plan_id empty retrieves the 'latest dispatch,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this is a safe read, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately sized without any wasted words.

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 (performance sensitivity analysis), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key parameter usage, but lacks details on behavioral traits, prerequisites, or error handling, leaving clear gaps for an analysis tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'plan_id' parameter by explaining that leaving it empty retrieves the latest dispatch, which provides useful context beyond the schema's basic title. However, it doesn't fully document the parameter's purpose, format, or constraints, keeping the score at the baseline for partial compensation.

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 as performing 'Performance sensitivity analysis: fuel and time impact of changing cruise altitude or cost index.' This specifies the verb (analysis) and resource (fuel/time impact) with the specific context of cruise altitude or cost index changes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_performance' or 'get_fuel_plan,' which prevents 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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Leave plan_id empty to get the latest dispatch.' This gives practical guidance on parameter usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_performance' or 'get_fuel_plan,' which would be needed for a score of 5.

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