Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a forecast but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't confirm safety or describe potential errors, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations. It uses two sentences efficiently, with no wasted words. However, the parameter section could be more integrated into the main description for better flow, but overall it's appropriately sized and structured.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the parameters but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for that in the description, but gaps remain in transparency and guidelines.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: 'project_id: The project's numeric ID' and 'units_system: Unit system (e.g. 'SI')'. This clarifies the purpose of both parameters but lacks details like valid unit values or project ID constraints. It compensates partially but not fully for the schema gap.

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: 'Get weather forecast for a project's location.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('weather forecast'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_project_weather' (which likely provides current weather). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential weather-related tools beyond the sibling list context.

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 prerequisites, such as needing a valid project ID, or contrast it with other weather tools like 'get_project_weather'. Usage is implied only through the tool name and parameters, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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