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. It discloses the tool's read-only nature (implied by 'get'), the default behavior for max_fixes, and the optional plan_id parameter. However, it lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format beyond field names, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by two concise usage sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains max_fixes, the third explains plan_id. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, parameter usage, and key behavioral defaults. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more detail on error handling or response structure, though the output schema mitigates this gap.

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. It explains both parameters: max_fixes 'limits the number of fixes shown' with a default of 50, and plan_id when 'empty' defaults to 'latest dispatch'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though it doesn't detail data types or constraints.

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 a 'full navigation log with all waypoints' and specifies the exact data fields included (identifier, type, altitude, leg distance, leg time, fuel burn per leg). It uses specific verbs ('get', 'limit', 'show') and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on navigation log data rather than aircraft info, weather, or other flight plan components.

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: 'Leave plan_id empty to get the latest dispatch' indicates the default behavior, and 'Use max_fixes to limit the number of fixes shown (default 50)' specifies how to control output. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by its unique data focus without needing explicit alternatives listed.

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