AAP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool 'handles' but doesn't describe whether these are read-only operations, mutations, or administrative functions. There's no information about permissions needed, rate limits, side effects, or what the output contains. The description is purely functional without behavioral context.

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 brief and efficiently structured in two sentences. The first establishes the tool category, and the second enumerates specific analytics types. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be more front-loaded with a clearer purpose statement.

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 (7 parameters, multiple actions) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It identifies the domain but doesn't help an agent understand when to use which action or how to interpret results. The output schema existence reduces the need to describe return values, but more operational context would be helpful.

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 documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of valid filter structures, or clarify when certain parameters are required together. 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 states the tool handles 'advanced analytics and reporting management' and lists specific analytics types (job analytics, host analysis, adoption metrics, ROI analysis, custom reports), which gives a general purpose. However, it lacks a specific verb and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'monitoring_analytics' - the distinction between 'advanced analytics' and 'monitoring analytics' is unclear.

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 'monitoring_analytics' or other sibling tools, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions for usage.

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