get_usage_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly communicates that the tool returns documentation, and the 'Get' verb combined with zero parameters makes the read-only, side-effect-free nature evident. It does not explicitly say 'read-only,' but there is no plausible mutation implied.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the 'Returns:' line mostly duplicates the second sentence ('Returns detailed documentation...' vs. 'Returns: Complete usage instructions...'), so it is not maximally tight.

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 zero-parameter, no-annotation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and content reasonably well. It could be strengthened by explicitly framing the tool as the onboarding/entry point for understanding the MCP server, but that is not a major omission.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details that do not exist.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get comprehensive usage instructions for the EnergyPlus MCP server.' It clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the many simulation/data sibling tools by framing it as documentation/meta-guidance rather than a domain operation.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining documentation and workflow guidance, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings or mentions alternatives. There is no 'use this when...' or 'use X instead for...' guidance, leaving the invocation context somewhat inferred.

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