suggest_servers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes scanning, listing, and cross-referencing behavior but does not disclose potential side effects, network usage, error handling, or whether it modifies any files. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence gives usage context, second explains the process. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity (scanning, listing, cross-referencing) and no output schema, the description explains input and general behavior but does not specify the output format or what exactly 'recommend servers you're missing' means. Slightly incomplete but still good for a suggestion tool.

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?

Only parameter 'cwd' has schema description 'Working directory to scan for environment signals. Defaults to process.cwd().' Description adds context about the scanning purpose, but the schema already covers the meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 the tool scans working directory for languages, frameworks, databases, and cloud providers, lists configured servers, and cross-references the MCP registry to recommend missing servers. It sets it apart from siblings like 'scan' or 'check_server' by focusing on recommendations for project setup.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when setting up a project or wondering what MCP servers to add.' Provides clear context for when to use, but does not mention when to use alternative sibling tools like 'scan' or 'check_server' instead.

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