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 and return value but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., overflow), performance characteristics, or any constraints beyond the basic multiplication function.

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?

Perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by well-structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words or redundancy.

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 simplicity (basic arithmetic), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the operation, parameters, and return value, though could benefit from more behavioral context for a tool with no annotations.

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. It clearly explains both parameters ('First number', 'Second number') and their purpose in the multiplication operation, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema types.

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 ('Multiply two numbers together') and identifies the resource (numbers). It distinguishes from sibling tools (add, divide, subtract) by specifying multiplication 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add', 'divide', or 'subtract'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate compared to other arithmetic operations available.

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