NewsDigest MCP

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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information on performance (e.g., speed, scalability), error handling (e.g., invalid paths), output format (e.g., list of locations), or limitations (e.g., symbol resolution accuracy). For a tool with 4 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place: 'Find all references' specifies the action, 'to a TypeScript/JavaScript symbol' defines the target, and 'across the codebase' sets the scope. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 (4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of reference locations), how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances like handling ambiguous symbols. For a code analysis tool with multiple inputs, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that parameters relate to symbol location (filePath, line, symbolName) and codebase context (root). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the high coverage.

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 action ('Find all references') and target ('TypeScript/JavaScript symbol across the codebase'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_definitions' or 'get_symbols_in_scope' by focusing specifically on reference finding rather than definitions or scope analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_type_at_symbol' or 'rename_symbol', which might also involve symbol operations.

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 like 'get_definitions' or 'get_symbols_in_scope'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a codebase root) or exclusions (e.g., not for non-symbol references). Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and sibling tools for related tasks.

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