Documentation MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'deep analysis extracts classes, functions, interfaces, documentation coverage, and more,' which gives some insight into output behavior. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error handling, or authentication needs for a tool that analyzes project structures.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and scope, and the second adds details about analysis depth and supported languages. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 complexity of project analysis (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns (e.g., structure, metrics, or raw data), how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits like side effects. For a tool that likely produces rich output, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it lists supported languages (matching the enum) and mentions 'deep code analysis' which relates to the 'deep' parameter. No additional syntax, format, or constraints are provided beyond what's in the schema.

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: 'Analyze project structure and perform deep code analysis to understand the project for documentation generation.' It specifies the verb ('analyze') and resource ('project structure'/'code'), and lists supported languages. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docs_generate_structure or docs_generate_api, which might have overlapping 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions documentation generation as a goal but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or how it relates to sibling tools like docs_generate_structure or docs_create_page. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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