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. It implies this is a read operation (retrieving data) but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or safe. It mentions the plan_id parameter behavior but doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description adds some context but leaves gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides crucial parameter guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted text. The structure efficiently communicates essential information.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving structured weight data), no annotations, 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what data is returned and how to use the parameter. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description appropriately focuses on purpose and parameter usage rather than output details.

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 and only 1 parameter, the description compensates well by explaining the plan_id parameter's purpose and behavior: 'Leave plan_id empty to get the latest dispatch.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's minimal title. However, it doesn't specify what format plan_id should be in or what happens with invalid values.

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 aircraft weight breakdown data including specific metrics (OEW, payload, passenger count, ZFW, TOW, ramp weight, landing weight). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on weight data rather than other flight aspects like weather, crew, or navigation. However, it doesn't explicitly name the verb 'retrieve' or 'get' beyond the tool name.

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: to obtain weight breakdown data. It specifies that leaving plan_id empty returns the latest dispatch, which is helpful usage guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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