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 disclosure but fails to specify critical behavioral traits: where the file is saved (temp directory, specific folder), whether it opens in the Word application, or what the return value represents (file path, binary content, success boolean).

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 extremely concise at only four words with zero redundancy. Every word serves a necessary function in identifying the tool's purpose, appropriate for a parameterless 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?

Despite having no parameters, the description is incomplete for a file creation tool. Without an output schema, it should explain the side effects (file persistence location, application launch behavior) and return value to enable proper agent utilization.

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?

Per evaluation rules, tools with zero parameters receive a baseline score of 4. The input schema contains no properties requiring semantic clarification beyond the description's implicit 'create a document' operation.

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 provides a clear verb-resource pair ('Create' + 'Word document') that identifies the tool's function. However, it lacks scope specification (e.g., blank document vs. template, local vs. cloud storage) that would elevate it to a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like excel_create or ppt_create, nor does it mention prerequisites such as available storage space or file naming conventions.

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