diagnose_mcdev_project_config

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 explicitly discloses read-only behavior, what is never done ('never writes files, loads hooks, reads auth or executes native CLI/live checks'), what is returned ('builder guidance, findings and explicit limitations'), and a concurrency caution ('Prevent concurrent filesystem mutation').

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and is generally efficient, but has mild redundancy between 'partial static diagnosis' and the later 'never writes... executes native CLI/live checks'. The final fragment 'Prevent concurrent filesystem mutation' is a bit terse and could be clearer.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, limitations, return contents, and side-effect boundaries well. It leaves some ambiguity about what 'findings' and 'builder guidance' look like, but that is reasonable without an output schema.

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?

The single parameter workspaceRoot has 100% schema description coverage ('Canonical absolute mcdev project root.'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('diagnosis') and resource ('.mcdevrc.json'), and explicitly scopes it as 'partial static' and 'not native mcdev validation or execution readiness'. This distinguishes it from raw config reads and from command execution tools in the sibling list.

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?

Provides clear context for use: 'FIRST use the visual MCDev Pipeline Builder before editing configuration' and reinforces it is not for native validation or execution readiness. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like read_mcdev_project_config or preview_mcdev_project_config, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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