Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the quality of Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool descriptions and their impact on the performance of Foundation Model (FM)-based agents. The authors analyzed 856 tools across 103 MCP servers, identifying six key components of tool descriptions and formalizing tool description "smells" based on a newly developed scoring rubric. They found that 97.1% of tool descriptions contain at least one smell, and while augmenting descriptions generally improves task success, it can also increase execution steps and regress performance in some cases, highlighting the need for carefully designed, compact descriptions.
Turns out, almost all AI agent tool descriptions are "smelly," and while fixing them improves performance, it also introduces a tricky efficiency trade-off that can be solved by carefully choosing which components to include.
The Model Context Protocol (MCP) introduces a standard specification that defines how Foundation Model (FM)-based agents should interact with external systems by invoking tools. However, to understand a tool's purpose and features, FMs rely on natural-language tool descriptions, making these descriptions a critical component in guiding FMs to select the optimal tool for a given (sub)task and to pass the right arguments to the tool. While defects or smells in these descriptions can misguide FM-based agents, their prevalence and consequences in the MCP ecosystem remain unclear. Hence, we examine 856 tools spread across 103 MCP servers empirically, assess their description quality, and their impact on agent performance. We identify six components of tool descriptions from the literature, develop a scoring rubric utilizing these components, and then formalize tool description smells based on this rubric. By operationalizing this rubric through an FM-based scanner, we find that 97.1% of the analyzed tool descriptions contain at least one smell, with 56% failing to state their purpose clearly. While augmenting these descriptions for all components improves task success rates by a median of 5.85 percentage points and improves partial goal completion by 15.12%, it also increases the number of execution steps by 67.46% and regresses performance in 16.67% of cases. These results indicate that achieving performance gains is not straightforward; while execution cost can act as a trade-off, execution context can also impact. Furthermore, component ablations show that compact variants of different component combinations often preserve behavioral reliability while reducing unnecessary token overhead, enabling more efficient use of the FM context window and lower execution costs.
