Pilot MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Read' implies non-destructive operation, but lacks disclosure on file size limits, supported formats (.doc vs .docx), error handling for missing files, or whether output includes formatting metadata.

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?

Extremely concise at 5 words. Single sentence is front-loaded with the core action. No filler or redundant text given the simplicity of the tool's purpose.

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?

Critical gap: schema has no parameters, yet description fails to explain how the target document is specified (e.g., via context, file path, or active selection). Without output schema, description should clarify return format but does not.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 params = baseline 4. Description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters since none exist to document.

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 specific verb (Read) and resource (Word document content). Distinguishes from siblings word_append, word_create, and other document readers like excel_read or pdf_read. However, 'content' is vague—does not clarify if it extracts plain text, formatting, images, or comments.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pdf_read for PDFs, read_note for Apple Notes). No mention of prerequisites or required context to specify which document to read.

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