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 mentions the return format ('compact list: comment id, body, author, date') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite 'limit' and 'offset' parameters). For a read operation with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding return format details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. A minor deduction for not structuring usage context more explicitly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, auth needs) and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, it should ideally describe response structure more thoroughly, but the 'compact list' hint provides some value.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'compact list' details or default values). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 all comments for a specific issue.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('comments'), and scope ('for a specific issue'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aps_issues_create_comment' or 'aps_issues_get', which would require more specific sibling differentiation for a score of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an issue ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'aps_issues_get' or 'aps_issues_create_comment'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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