aleostudio MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Returns: Operation result with details' which gives some behavioral context about output, but doesn't cover important aspects like error handling (e.g., division by zero), precision limitations, rate limits, or authentication requirements for a calculation service.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose statement. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' statement could be slightly more specific about what 'details' includes.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, basic math operations) and the presence of an output schema (which should document return values), the description is reasonably complete for core functionality. However, it lacks important context about error cases, limitations, and behavioral expectations that would be needed for robust agent usage.

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% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by documenting all three parameters with clear semantics: operation types (add, subtract, multiply, divide, power) and operand roles (first and second). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't provide format details like whether 'power' means exponentiation.

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 as 'Execute basic math operation' with specific operations listed in the Args section. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like convert_data or process_text by focusing on mathematical calculations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential mathematical siblings that might not exist in this set.

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. While the sibling tools have different domains (data conversion, URL fetching, datetime operations, text processing), there's no explicit comparison or context about when mathematical calculation is appropriate versus other operations.

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