BuildMcpServer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the basic operation but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't warn about division by zero errors, specify numeric type handling (integers vs floats), or describe error responses. For a mutation-like tool (division modifies data), this is inadequate.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first in a single sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant with schema fields, and it could be more streamlined.

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 low complexity (simple arithmetic), no annotations, and an output schema that likely covers return values, the description is minimally complete. It explains the operation and parameters but misses behavioral details like error handling. For such a basic tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It explicitly defines both parameters ('a: Numerator', 'b: Denominator') with clear mathematical meanings beyond the schema's generic titles ('A', 'B'). This adds essential semantic context that the schema lacks.

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 specific action ('Divide the first number by the second') and identifies the resource (numbers). It distinguishes from sibling tools (add, multiply, subtract) by specifying division rather than other arithmetic operations.

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 like 'multiply' or 'subtract'. It lacks context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., division by zero handling).

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