XR875 Build MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a build operation with specific shell commands, suggesting it's likely a mutation tool that executes processes, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as execution time, side effects, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential system impacts.

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 sentence that lists commands, which is concise but not optimally structured. It front-loads the purpose but includes technical details (commands) without explanation, which may confuse non-expert agents. It could be more polished for clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely performs system builds, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool returns, error conditions, or dependencies, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent in a complex environment.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, but it does include command details that could be seen as implicit parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero params, as the schema fully covers the lack of inputs.

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 tool's purpose: 'Build the M33 OTA' with specific commands. It distinguishes from siblings like 'build_all' or 'build_c906' by specifying the M33 target. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'build_m33' (which might be similar) or explain what 'OTA' means, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 like 'build_m33' or 'pack_firmware'. The description lists commands but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and command sequence alone.

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