ILP Drone Delivery MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions outputs like cost estimate and drone assignment, but doesn't cover critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only simulation or commits to actual delivery planning, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a planning tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key outputs. Every element earns its place by specifying what the tool does and what it returns. It could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from outputs, but it's appropriately sized 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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, usage context, or output details beyond a high-level summary. For a planning tool that likely involves calculations and resource assignment, more context on constraints, assumptions, or result format would be needed.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions general outputs but doesn't explain how parameters like 'heating' or 'cooling' affect the plan. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('plan a delivery route') and outputs ('cost estimate, number of moves, drone assignment, complete path planning'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_drone_availability' or 'get_delivery_geojson' by emphasizing comprehensive planning rather than checking or retrieving specific data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'plan_multiple_deliveries' beyond the singular vs. plural implication.

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 when to choose this over 'plan_multiple_deliveries' for single deliveries, or prerequisites like needing drone availability checks first. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.

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