generate_ide_config

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds context about generating a config file and including install instructions, which aligns with the annotations. No contradictions; the description provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 waste. It front-loads the core purpose, then concisely lists the key options. Every sentence adds value.

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 has only 2 parameters with simple enums and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, the inputs, and what the output includes. It does not cover error handling or prerequisites, but for a config generation tool, the provided information is sufficient.

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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists the IDE options and mode options, adding meaning by specifying tool counts for modes (smart: 181, full: 533). However, it does not explain the effect of different IDEs or the content of the output beyond 'install instructions'. This is adequate for a simple tool but leaves some gaps.

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 generates MCP config files for IDEs based on connected brokers and data providers, specifying the file names (mcporter.json / mcp.json) and the supported IDEs and modes. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools focused on market data, accounts, and other 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?

The description lists the supported IDEs and modes (smart/full with tool counts), providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., needing connected brokers). The guidance is mostly implicit.

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