MapleStats MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the description needed to add context beyond the safety profile. Instead it adds nothing behavioral: no error behavior for unknown tool names, no note that the arguments object must conform to the target tool's own schema, and no statement about how results are returned.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action in the first line and the routing note in the second; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the second sentence could have carried more of the behavioral detail the tool lacks.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is not obligated to explain return values. However, for an openWorld dispatcher that can invoke arbitrary tools, the critical mechanics (unknown-tool handling, argument-schema conformance, error propagation) go unaddressed, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 both parameters ('name', 'arguments') are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by name with the given arguments' merely restates the schema and adds no format or constraint detail, such as the fact that 'arguments' must match the invoked tool's input schema.

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 ('Call a tool by name with the given arguments') and is clearly distinguishable from search_tools, which discovers rather than executes. It does not mention plan_query, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

'Use this to execute tools discovered via search_tools' gives an explicit workflow trigger and names the upstream step that must precede it, which is real guidance. It offers no when-not-use condition and never contrasts with plan_query, so it stops short of the top band.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond that: what the plan returns (topics, ordered tool calls, local portals, combination caveats) and the non-obvious note that "lang is accepted for consistency; the plan text is English" — a real behavioral quirk the schema alone does not reveal.

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 core guidance is well front-loaded and earn its place, but the trailing keyword and Mots-clés blocks are length padding that restates the same concepts in two languages. Useful for search_tools discovery, but they dilute the definition's structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be enumerated, yet the description helpfully previews what the plan contains. Combined with the usage context and the call_tool handoff, an agent has nearly everything it needs; only the question parameter's expected format is left implicit.

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 description must carry the load. It clarifies the lang parameter's actual effect (accepted for consistency, output stays English) and illustrates the question parameter with a sample, but never describes the expected form or scope of question beyond the example. Partial compensation only.

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 (plan) and resource (which sources answer a question), and explicitly scopes it to cross-agency questions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming call_tool as the follow-up executor, so an agent can tell it apart from search_tools and call_tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ("the first call on a substantive question") and gives a concrete example, plus tells the agent what to do next ("run the steps with call_tool"). It lacks an explicit when-not clause, e.g. routing simple single-source lookups away from this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that results are ranked by relevance and returned in the same format as list_tools, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core purpose before describing the return behavior. Every sentence contributes to understanding how to invoke or interpret the tool.

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 a simple one-parameter search tool with rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: purpose, query style, and return shape. No critical invocation or interpretation detail is missing.

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?

There is exactly one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the natural-language query input. The description does not add syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource—searching for tools—and clarifies that results are matching tool definitions ranked by relevance. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings call_tool or plan_query.

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 phrase 'Search for tools using natural language' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. An agent can infer that this is for discovery, but it receives no direct help in choosing between this and call_tool or plan_query.

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