Evaluate explicitly stated audience profiles and a weighted scenario mixture to model attention, curiosity, surprise, and fatigue through a creative work, not a measured population sample.
Evaluate explicitly stated audience profiles and a weighted scenario mixture. Not a measured population sample.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| document | Yes | ||
| profiles | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds scope context (explicitly stated profiles, not a measured sample) but does not describe return values, output format, or any operational behavior beyond that. No contradiction with 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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is stated first, followed by the exclusion. No unnecessary repetition.
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 tool with three nested parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what 'document' or 'options' should contain, nor what the tool returns. The purpose and exclusion are present, but essential input guidance 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and all three parameters are nested objects with no schema-level documentation. The description hints at profiles ('audience profiles') and possibly the scenario mixture, but does not explain the 'document' parameter or clarify the structure of any input. It fails to compensate for the schema coverage 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?
States a specific verb (evaluate) and two resources (audience profiles, weighted scenario mixture), and an exclusion ('Not a measured population sample'). This distinguishes it from population sampling tools, but does not differentiate it from siblings like ap_evaluate or ap_compare.
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?
Provides an implied context (evaluating explicitly stated profiles) and one exclusion, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative sibling names. An agent must infer when this tool is preferable to ap_evaluate or ap_compare.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.