Maid-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 behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('show') but doesn't describe what happens: e.g., whether this creates a new avatar instance, makes an existing one visible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (like overriding other displays), or what the visual outcome looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's action and target. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no redundant or verbose elements. Every word earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (visual display with positioning and animation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core function but lacks details on behavior, prerequisites, or visual outcomes. The schema covers parameters well, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral context, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 100% description coverage, with clear defaults and meanings for 'animation', 'x', and 'y'. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it doesn't enhance semantics. However, since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 ('show') and resource ('visual avatar on screen'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'hide_avatar' (opposite action) and 'move_avatar' (different function), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'play_animation' that might also involve visual display. The description is specific but could be more precise about what 'show' entails versus other visual tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an avatar must be loaded first), exclusions (e.g., not to use if avatar is already visible), or comparisons to siblings like 'play_animation' or 'move_avatar'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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