ACC.MCP

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 key behavioral traits: it returns a compact JSON (specifying structure), is ~95% smaller than raw API, and supports optional filtering. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are important for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations.

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 output details and key features. Every sentence adds value: the second explains the compact JSON structure, the third highlights efficiency, and the fourth covers filtering and alternative tool. No wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains the output format in detail, mentions efficiency gains, and provides usage guidance. However, it lacks information on error cases or response handling, which could be important for an agent invoking this tool without an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering by file extension and hiding hidden items,' which aligns with filter_extensions and exclude_hidden parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get a summarised listing of a folder's contents') and resource ('folder'), distinguishing it from siblings like aps_get_folder_tree (which likely provides hierarchical structure) and aps_dm_request (which provides raw API response). The verb 'Get' and the detailed output specification make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('For the full raw response, use aps_dm_request instead'), providing a clear alternative. It also implies usage for compact summaries versus raw data, though it doesn't specify when to choose other siblings like aps_get_folder_tree, but the named alternative is sufficient for a top score.

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