Recommend tools for this project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered; the description reinforces this with '(locally, read-only)' and adds a genuine constraint beyond the annotations: 'Never installs anything.' It also discloses the filtering behavior ('skipping ones already set up'). It does not discuss cost, latency, or what the recommendation list contains internally.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the no-install constraint placed last for emphasis. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a no-required-param, no-output-schema tool, the description names the categories returned and the scope of the scan, which is enough to call it correctly. Gaps: the return shape/format of the recommendations and the role of the undocumented limit parameter are not addressed.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already states defaults for host and path. The description adds only marginal meaning, clarifying that 'task' should be a short, task-specific sentence — largely overlapping the schema's 'What the user is working on, in a sentence.' The limit parameter is left undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Scan the project ... and list MCP servers, plugins, skills and CLIs that fit it and the current task.' The scope (project-local, fit-based, skipping already-configured tools) is clear enough to separate it from a generic tool search. It stops short of naming a sibling (search_tools, tooling_status, plan_install) as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you use it to get recommendations for a project/task, and 'skipping ones already set up' implies it's the right pick when you need fresh suggestions. There is no explicit when-to-use versus search_tools/tooling_status/plan_install, and no exclusion conditions. 'Pass a short task description for task-specific advice' is parameter guidance, not tool-routing guidance.

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