Warmup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints that a report is produced ('выдаёт отчёт для проверки') but says nothing about caching behavior implied by `force`, what `invalidate` destroys, whether warmup mutates project state, or what the report contains. For a six-action tool with mutation-capable modes, this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the system name and the core capability. Nothing is padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of covering only one of six actions rather than from tight editing of complete information.

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?

With six parameters, six enum actions, and no output schema, the description should explain the action space and the shape of the verification report. Instead it documents only the default warmup path, leaving a third of the tool's functionality and all of its return value opaque to the agent.

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 every parameter including the action enum and scope levels is already documented inline. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, which is acceptable here since the schema does the work, but there is no credit to give beyond the baseline.

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 names a specific capability — warming up project context for a new chat and returning a verification report — which is clearer than the bare title 'Warmup'. However, it only describes the 'warmup' action, while the required `action` enum exposes six distinct operations (status, invalidate, record, compliance, akstis) that the description never acknowledges. An agent cannot tell from this text that the tool is multi-modal rather than a single warmup routine.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many related siblings such as mcp_m7_session, mcp_m7_init_project, or mcp_m7_cross_session. Nor is there any indication of which of the six actions an agent should choose or when. Usage must be inferred entirely from the enum.

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