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: project name, id, platform, last modified date') and hints at behavioral context by mentioning downstream usage. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are important for a list operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, the second specifies output, and the third guides next steps. It's efficient with zero waste.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, output format, and usage context. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or errors, which would be helpful for a list tool. With no output schema, explaining return values is valuable, which it does well.

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 the single parameter (hub_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it does reference aps_list_hubs for obtaining hub_id, which provides contextual value. 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 verb ('List') and resource ('projects in an ACC / BIM 360 hub'), specifies the scope ('compact summary: project name, id, platform, last modified date'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning downstream tools (aps_get_top_folders, aps_get_folder_contents) that use its output. This is specific and well-differentiated.

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 ('List projects in an ACC / BIM 360 hub') and provides clear alternatives by naming specific sibling tools (aps_get_top_folders, aps_get_folder_contents) that should be used with its output. It also implies a prerequisite by referencing aps_list_hubs for obtaining the hub_id parameter.

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