Kratos-MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read/write operation, side effects (e.g., state persistence, configuration loading), permissions needed, or error conditions. 'Switch' implies mutation, but specifics are missing.

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, direct sentence with zero waste—'Switch to a different project' is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action. It earns its place by being minimal yet clear.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation-like tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'switch' does operationally, what happens post-switch, or potential impacts. For a tool that likely changes system state, more context is needed.

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%, with the parameter 'project_path' documented as 'Path to project directory'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the single parameter.

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 'Switch to a different project' clearly states the action (switch) and target (project), but it's vague about what 'switch' entails operationally (e.g., changing active context, loading configurations). It distinguishes from siblings like 'project_current' and 'project_list' by implying a state change, but lacks specificity on the resource affected.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing projects), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'project_current' (get current) or 'project_list' (list available). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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