Pilot MCP

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose what happens when invoked (where the request is sent, authentication requirements, persistence, or side effects). The agent cannot determine if this creates a local file, sends an API request, or opens a UI.

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?

At three words, the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It front-loads no useful information beyond the name itself, failing to earn its place in the tool definition.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the tool's mechanism and scope. It provides insufficient context for an agent to understand what domain the feature request applies to or what the user should expect upon 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 has 0 parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per scoring rules. While the description does not explain why parameters are absent or how the feature request content is captured (e.g., via UI), there are no parameters requiring semantic elaboration.

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 'Request a new feature' restates the tool name (tautology) without specifying what product/system the feature is for or how it differs from siblings like 'report_bug' or 'request_integration'. It provides only a generic verb+noun with no domain 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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'report_bug' or 'request_integration', nor any indication of prerequisites or expected input mechanisms (e.g., whether it opens a dialog or requires clipboard content).

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