DeepMiro

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: file size limits (10MB), format restrictions (PDF/MD/TXT), server-side text extraction details (PyMuPDF for PDFs), and transport limitations (stdio only). However, it doesn't mention error handling or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, LIMITS with key constraints, server behavior explanation, return value context, and transport mode guidance. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words.

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 single-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context: purpose, constraints, server processing details, return value usage, and transport limitations. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling information, but overall it's highly complete for this complexity level.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents the single parameter thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing format and size constraints in the LIMITS section, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema 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 explicitly states the verb 'upload' and resource 'document', specifies it's 'for use in simulations', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_simulation by focusing on the file upload step. It provides specific scope beyond just the name/title.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'to pass to create_simulation' and clear when-not-to-use: 'Only works with local file paths (stdio transport). For remote/hosted mode, the client skill uploads via HTTP instead.' It distinguishes this tool from alternative upload mechanisms.

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