_mcp_load_project_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'apply', implying mutation without detailing side effects, authorization needs, or failure modes. Lacks transparency for a potentially impactful operation.

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, front-loaded sentence without fluff. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, which slightly reduces the score.

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 presence of an output schema, full return detail is not needed. However, the description lacks operational context (e.g., what 'apply' entails, whether it modifies existing configurations, dependencies). Adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds the context that template_name is a 'named template preset' but does not explain valid values, format, or the relationship between parameters. Insufficient detail.

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 verb 'apply' and the resource 'named template preset (config + requirements)' to a project. It distinguishes from sibling tools like _mcp_create_project_structure, though it could be more specific about the nature of the template.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or conditions for use, and no mention of when not to use it. Given many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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