Maid-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('play') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if playback is immediate, blocking, or interruptible; whether it requires specific states (e.g., avatar visible); what happens on errors (e.g., invalid ID); or if it has side effects like audio. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('play an animation') and adds clarifying detail ('single pose or sequence') without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., playback behavior, error handling), usage prerequisites, and output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it reliably beyond basic parameter passing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'Animation ID (e.g., "idle", "happy", "treasure_hunt")'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or how IDs map to poses/sequences. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('play') and resource ('animation'), specifying it can handle both single poses and sequences. It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_animation' (opposite action) and 'list_animations' (list vs. execute), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_animation' (creation vs. execution).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an animation to be loaded or an avatar visible), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_animations' for discovery or 'stop_animation' for halting playback.

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