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 that the tool returns a 'compact summary' and is 'much smaller than the raw API response,' which is useful behavioral context about output size. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond offset/limit parameters), or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with 14 parameters.

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 three sentences: purpose statement, output summary, and filtering capabilities. Each sentence adds essential information with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core function and appropriately sized for a complex tool.

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 (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does well by explaining the compact output format and filtering scope. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, error cases, or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for a robust agent implementation. The high schema coverage mitigates some gaps.

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 14 parameters. The description adds value by summarizing the filtering capabilities ('Supports filtering by status, assignee, type, date, search text, and more') and listing the returned fields ('id, displayId, title, status, assignee, dates, comment count'), which provides high-level context beyond the schema's technical details.

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: 'List and search issues in a project with optional filtering.' It specifies the verb ('list and search'), resource ('issues in a project'), and distinguishes from siblings like aps_issues_get (which likely retrieves a single issue) and aps_issues_create (which creates issues). The mention of 'compact summary' further clarifies the output scope.

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 for listing/searching issues, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aps_issues_get (for single issue details) or aps_issues_update (for modifications). It mentions 'much smaller than the raw API response,' which hints at efficiency but doesn't clearly define trade-offs or exclusions.

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