CodeToPrompt MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output ('detailed statistical analysis') but lacks behavioral details such as performance characteristics, error handling, or side effects. For a tool that analyzes codebases, it doesn't mention whether it's read-only, resource-intensive, or has any limitations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate for the basic purpose. It covers what the tool does but lacks depth on behavioral aspects and output details. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values, which could be important for a statistical analysis tool.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Provides a detailed statistical analysis of a codebase, including token counts, line counts, and breakdowns by file type.' It specifies the action ('statistical analysis'), resource ('codebase'), and key metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ctp-get-context' or 'ctp-get-files', which might also interact with codebases.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools or other contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the purpose. There's no explicit when/when-not advice or prerequisites stated.

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