delay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the response is delayed but still successful, which meaningfully separates it from 'hang' (no response) and 'disconnect' (dropped connection). It adds no information about blocking behavior, the 30s ceiling, or whether the call is cancellable mid-delay.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the purpose. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter test utility with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is delayed and why. It would be fully complete if it noted that the call blocks the connection for the given duration and that the schema-bound maximum is 30 seconds.

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% and the single parameter 'delayMs' is fully documented with units, minimum, and maximum in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delay a successful MCP response') plus the intent ('test client timeout behavior'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'hang' or 'disconnect', which is close in function, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies its use case ('test client timeout behavior'), which is enough to infer that this is for fault-injection testing rather than production calls. However, it never says when to prefer this over 'hang', 'disconnect', or 'protocol_ping_liveness', leaving the sibling selection to inference.

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