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 describes what data is retrieved (performance metrics) and a conditional aspect ('if available for this aircraft type'), but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and data types, and the second provides parameter guidance. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys key information without redundancy. A minor deduction because it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter usage but lacks behavioral context like safety, permissions, or error cases. For a tool with one parameter and output schema, it's adequate but has clear gaps in transparency and guidelines.

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 for the single parameter (plan_id) by explaining that leaving it empty retrieves 'the latest dispatch,' which clarifies its optional nature and effect. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'Plan Id'), this compensates well. However, it doesn't detail the format or constraints of plan_id beyond this usage note.

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 'takeoff and landing performance data (TLR)' including specific metrics like takeoff distance, climb performance, and landing calculations. It specifies this is for aircraft types when available, providing a specific verb (get/retrieve) and resource (performance data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_aircraft_info or get_weights, which might also relate to aircraft data.

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_aircraft_info or get_full_flight_plan, nor does it provide context on prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is limited to parameter usage rather than tool selection.

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