Code Whisperer MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a list operation (implying read-only behavior) and mentions the output fields, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs (though the schema shows an optional api_key), or error handling. The description adds some context but lacks depth for behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and references an alternative, but lacks details on authentication (implied by api_key but not explained), output format beyond field names, or error cases. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful.

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. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all available CLAUDE.md templates with slug, title, and category.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('CLAUDE.md templates'), and output fields. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_prompts' or 'list_skills' beyond mentioning a different resource type.

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 provides clear context: 'Use get_template to fetch the full template content.' This explicitly names an alternative tool for a related action (fetching content vs. listing metadata). However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus other list tools like 'list_prompts' or 'list_skills'.

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