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 but lacks behavioral details. It mentions 'monitoring and configuration' but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether actions are read-only or destructive, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with multiple action types (e.g., delete_http_port), this omission is significant.

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 front-loaded, listing key domains in two sentences without unnecessary details. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating monitoring from configuration functions, and the second sentence is a bit run-on, slightly reducing clarity.

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 (8 parameters, multiple action types) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers broad functional areas but lacks depth on behavioral aspects, usage context, and integration with siblings. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema helps mitigate gaps.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the action parameter's scope (e.g., activity streams, HTTP ports). This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 'gateway monitoring and configuration' with specific domains like 'activity streams, settings, status monitoring, and HTTP port management', which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about what 'handles' means (e.g., create, read, update, delete) and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'gateway_auth_management' or 'gateway_service_management', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lists functional areas but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparisons to siblings like 'gateway_auth_management' or 'monitoring_analytics'. Usage is implied through the action parameter, but no context for selection is given.

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