Code Whisperer MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as listing patterns with specific fields, but doesn't disclose operational traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs (though the schema shows an optional api_key), or error handling. The description adds basic context but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the purpose and output fields, while the second provides usage guidance, with every word earning its place. No redundant or verbose language is present.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a listing operation. It covers purpose, output fields, and sibling differentiation, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error cases, which would be helpful despite the simple context.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter (api_key). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining when or why the api_key is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('List all available prompt patterns') and resource ('prompt patterns'), while distinguishing it from sibling tools by mentioning that 'get_prompt' should be used to fetch full content. It provides exact fields returned (slug, title, category, tags), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('List all available prompt patterns') versus alternatives ('Use get_prompt to fetch the full prompt content'), providing clear guidance on tool selection. It distinguishes this listing tool from the detailed retrieval sibling, though it doesn't mention other siblings like list_skills or list_templates.

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