Compare snowball, avalanche, custom-priority, and minimum-only debt payoff plans by budget to evaluate interest savings; incomplete baselines return no savings estimate instead of fabricated figures.
Compare four strategies without writing. Incomplete baselines produce null interest savings, never fabricated savings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | No | ||
| budget | Yes | ||
| months | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: the operation performs no writes, and incomplete baselines yield null interest savings rather than fabricated figures. That non-fabrication guarantee is genuinely useful and non-obvious. However, it says nothing about what constitutes an "incomplete baseline," what permissions or inputs are required, cost, or invocation constraints.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important behavioral caveat; nothing is padded. The second sentence is slightly compressed to the point of obscurity, but it earns its place by preventing fabricated-savings assumptions.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained. But for a tool with a required, wholly undocumented "budget" argument and a sibling that may overlap, the description omits the input contract and selection guidance an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. The required "budget" parameter has no stated type, currency, or format, "months" has an unexplained default of 600, and "start" is never mentioned; only the vague phrase "incomplete baselines" hints at how these inputs relate.
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 gives a verb and a count ("Compare four strategies") but never names the strategies or the domain, so the agent must infer from siblings (list_debts, simulate_plan) that these are debt-payoff strategies. It also does not contrast itself with simulate_plan, which sounds like a near-neighbor, leaving selection ambiguous.
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?
"without writing" implies a read-only comparison versus some mutating alternative, which is a faint usage signal. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative despite simulate_plan being a plausible competing choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.