suggest_servers

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the scanning and recommendation process, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or any required permissions. A more explicit statement about nondestructive behavior would improve clarity.

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 front-loaded with the use case and is reasonably concise (one sentence). It could be slightly shorter, but it effectively communicates the tool's purpose and operation without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description explains the main functionality and context, but it lacks details about the output format, error handling, or any limitations. With no output schema, the description should have clarified what the recommendation looks like. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'cwd' with a description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only repeats the scanning context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool scans a working directory for environment signals and cross-references the MCP registry to recommend missing servers. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_server' and 'score_server' which have different purposes.

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 says 'Use this when setting up a project or wondering what MCP servers to add,' providing clear context for usage. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the unique functionality, this is acceptable.

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