Code Whisperer MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves content but doesn't describe what 'full CLAUDE.md template content' entails (e.g., format, structure, size), whether it requires authentication (implied by 'api_key' parameter but not stated), or any rate limits or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic retrieval.

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 ('Get the full CLAUDE.md template content') and specifies the key constraint ('for a specific project type by slug'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic retrieval action and target resource, but lacks details on authentication needs (implied by 'api_key' but not explained), output format, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer these aspects, making the description minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 both parameters ('slug' and 'api_key') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'by slug' which aligns with the schema but not providing additional context like example slugs or how 'api_key' relates to authentication. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 action ('Get') and resource ('full CLAUDE.md template content for a specific project type by slug'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_templates' by specifying retrieval of full content for a specific template rather than listing available templates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_prompt' or 'get_skill', which might have similar retrieval patterns.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for a specific project type by slug,' suggesting this tool should be used when you need the complete template content for a known template identifier. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_templates' (for browsing) or other 'get_' tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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