ACC.MCP

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior as returning reference documentation, which implies it's a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't specify details like response format, potential rate limits, or authentication needs, 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 concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence specifies the purpose and content, while the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it. However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., structured data vs. text) and any prerequisites, which could be helpful for an agent invoking it.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying that no inputs are needed for this documentation retrieval, aligning with the empty schema. No parameter details are required, and the description appropriately omits them.

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 with specific verbs ('Return APS Data Management quick‑reference documentation') and resources ('common ID formats, typical browsing workflow, raw API paths, query parameters, BIM file extensions, and error troubleshooting'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on documentation retrieval rather than data operations like 'aps_dm_request' or 'aps_get_folder_contents'.

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 usage guidelines: 'Call this before your first APS interaction or when unsure about ID formats or API paths.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool (for reference before interactions or when uncertain) and implies when not to use it (for actual data operations handled by siblings).

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