qa_check_config

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the tool returns validation results with error messages and line numbers, but does not indicate whether it modifies any files, requires permissions, or has side effects. While not contradictory, it lacks depth for a validation tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then specifies the output format, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what it validates and what results to expect, though it could mention that it is a read-only operation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'projectPath', and its schema description adequately explains it. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 validates a specific file (.mcp-qa-config.json) and returns validation results. The verb 'Validate' and resource 'project's .mcp-qa-config.json file' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., qa_run_tests, qa_list_modules) by focusing on configuration validation.

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 (e.g., qa_run_module, qa_run_tests) or context for usage. It does not mention prerequisites, when validation is needed, or when it might not be appropriate.

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