Agentic Tools MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool is 'essential for project analysis', it doesn't describe key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the project doesn't exist, whether authentication is required, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 sized with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff. However, the second sentence could be more direct about when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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 has 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose and usage context. However, for a tool that retrieves project details, the description doesn't address what happens when parameters are invalid or the project doesn't exist, nor does it describe the return format. With no output schema, the agent has no information about what data structure to expect.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how 'id' relates to projects or how 'workingDirectory' affects the operation. With complete schema coverage, the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Access comprehensive project details including metadata, creation dates, and current status.' It specifies the verb ('access') and resource ('project details') with concrete examples of what details are retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_task', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 implied usage context: 'Essential for project analysis, reporting, and understanding project context when planning tasks or reviewing progress in your development workflow.' This suggests when the tool is useful, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' or 'get_task', nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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