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 the return format ('compact summary: hub name, id, type, and region') and hints at authentication ('accessible to this app'), but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or pagination. This is adequate but has gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with key information and appropriately sized for its 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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, output format, and usage context. However, it could improve by mentioning potential errors or authentication requirements more explicitly, but it's sufficient for a simple list tool.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description adds value by clarifying that no inputs are needed ('List all...'), which aligns with the empty schema, but doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. It effectively communicates the tool's simplicity.

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 ('List') and resource ('ACC / BIM 360 hubs (accounts)'), specifies the scope ('accessible to this app'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning its output is used for 'aps_list_projects'. This is specific and avoids tautology.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('List all ACC / BIM 360 hubs') and provides a clear alternative or next step ('Use the returned hub id... in subsequent calls to aps_list_projects'), giving direct guidance on its role in the workflow without misleading information.

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