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 that times are in UTC and explains the plan_id parameter behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements for a flight data tool.

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 with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence lists what data is returned, and the second provides critical usage guidance for the parameter. No wasted words 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 the tool has an output schema (which should document return values), the description covers the core purpose and parameter usage adequately. However, for a flight operations tool with no annotations, it lacks information about behavioral constraints, error handling, or data freshness that would be helpful for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the plan_id parameter's semantics: 'Leave plan_id empty to get the latest dispatch.' This adds crucial meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, making the parameter's purpose and default behavior clear.

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 flight timing data ('All flight times in UTC') with specific metrics listed, providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_flight_summary or get_full_flight_plan, which might also contain timing 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 clear context about when to use the tool ('Leave plan_id empty to get the latest dispatch'), giving practical guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for basic usage.

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