Pilot MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to specify whether checks are read-only or corrective, what output format to expect, or how long execution might take. 'Run diagnostic checks' implies an action but not the consequences or results.

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 single seven-word sentence is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the action verb. However, extreme brevity leaves critical gaps given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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?

Without annotations, output schema, or parameters, the description needed to compensate by explaining what diagnostics are returned and how to interpret them. It fails to do so, leaving agents uncertain about what information they'll receive after invocation.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. No parameter documentation is required.

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 action (run diagnostic checks) and target (all connected services), distinguishing it from the many CRUD-focused sibling tools. However, it lacks specificity about what 'connected services' encompasses or what types of diagnostics are performed.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus attempting operations directly with the service-specific tools. No mention of prerequisites or conditions that would indicate a need for diagnostics.

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