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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the return format ('folder name, id, and item count') and hints at the tool's role in a workflow. However, it lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated). The description adds value but misses some behavioral traits.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, output format, and usage flow. However, it lacks details on error handling or authentication context, which would be helpful for an agent. Without annotations or output schema, these gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 fully documents both parameters (hub_id and project_id). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 ('root / top‑level folders for an ACC / BIM 360 project'), specifies the scope ('root / top‑level'), and distinguishes from siblings by naming aps_get_folder_contents as the next step for deeper exploration. It provides concrete examples of common root folders, making the purpose highly specific and actionable.

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 ('Get the root / top‑level folders') and provides a clear alternative for subsequent actions ('Use the folder id with aps_get_folder_contents'). However, it does not specify when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. aps_get_folder_tree for recursive listing) or compare with other folder-related siblings, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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