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. It discloses that it returns file names, URNs, revision numbers, and categories, and mentions using URNs for downloads via another API, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling, which are important for a read operation in an API context.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and follow with actionable guidance on using the output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (a read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering the basics: purpose, output details, and usage context. However, it could be more complete by including information about response format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, which would help an agent use it more effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (project_id and item_id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('attachments for a specific submittal item'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'aps_get_submittal_item' (which likely gets item details, not attachments) and 'aps_get_folder_contents' (which is folder-focused). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 implies usage by specifying it's for a 'specific submittal item' and mentions using the URN to download via the Data Management API, which suggests context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aps_submittals_docs' or 'aps_docs', and doesn't state any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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