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 states the tool returns a 'compact summary' with listed fields, which gives some output context, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a list of returned fields. It avoids unnecessary fluff, and each sentence adds value (e.g., the list clarifies output scope). However, it could be slightly more structured by grouping fields or adding brief context, but it's efficient overall.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and output fields well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, auth) and usage guidelines. With no output schema, it compensates by listing return values, but doesn't fully address gaps in transparency or parameter guidance, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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 three parameters (project_id, issue_id, region) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors (e.g., region defaulting to US), or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a single issue.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('single issue'), and lists the returned fields, making it distinct from generic 'get' operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aps_issues_list' (which likely lists multiple issues) or 'aps_get_item_details' (which might handle different item types), missing full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that 'issue_id' should be obtained from 'aps_issues_list', which is a prerequisite hint, but doesn't explain when to choose this over other issue-related tools like 'aps_issues_get_comments' or 'aps_issues_update'. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative usage context.

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