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 the destructive action ('Delete') and the scope of deletion ('all its references'), but lacks critical details such as whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 action and resource without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information about the tool's purpose and scope.

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 a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like error handling, confirmation prompts, side effects on dependent code, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 five parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying that 'symbolName' refers to a TypeScript/JavaScript symbol and 'removeReferences' relates to deleting references. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('TypeScript/JavaScript symbol'), including what types of symbols are affected ('variable, function, class, etc.') and the scope ('and all its references'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'rename_symbol' by specifying deletion rather than modification.

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 'rename_symbol' or 'find_references', nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for deletion. It states what the tool does but not when it should be selected.

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

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.

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 but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data vs. plain text), error conditions, or performance implications. The description is too vague to guide the agent effectively beyond the basic action.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted space or redundant phrasing.

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 a TypeScript symbol definition tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'definition' (e.g., source code location, type details), how results are returned, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks critical context for 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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters like 'root', 'filePath', and 'symbolName' without needing duplication in the description.

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 ('Get') and resource ('definition(s) of a TypeScript symbol'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_symbols_in_scope' or 'get_type_at_symbol', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes 'definitions' from other symbol-related queries.

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 'find_references' or 'get_type_at_symbol'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a TypeScript project setup) or typical use cases (e.g., debugging vs. documentation), leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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—such as whether it requires TypeScript configuration, how it handles missing files, what the output format looks like, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 element ('Get TypeScript diagnostics', 'errors, warnings', 'for a single file') earns its place by clarifying scope and function, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances like how diagnostics are generated or what happens with invalid inputs. For a diagnostic tool with rich parameter schema but missing output details, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'virtualContent' interacts with 'filePath' or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 specific action ('Get TypeScript diagnostics') and resource ('for a single file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_definitions' or 'get_symbols_in_scope' which focus on different aspects of TypeScript analysis. It specifies the scope (errors, warnings) and single-file limitation, making the purpose immediately understandable.

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_type_at_symbol' or 'find_references', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for TypeScript file analysis but lacks context about when this specific diagnostic tool is appropriate compared to other analysis tools in the sibling set.

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

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 the tool retrieves symbols 'without detailed signatures', hinting at limited output detail, but fails to describe critical behaviors like error handling (e.g., invalid module names), performance (e.g., speed for large modules), or output format (e.g., list of symbols vs. structured data). For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap, scoring 2 for vague behavioral hints.

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 ('Get all exported symbols...') and adds a key constraint ('without detailed signatures'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding, earning a 5.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output (what symbols look like), error cases, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context for effective use, but it falls short, scoring 2 for being under-specified relative to the tool's needs.

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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'moduleName' as 'The module to analyze'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as examples for 'filePath' usage or constraints on 'root'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('exported symbols from a TypeScript/JavaScript module'), specifying the scope ('without detailed signatures'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_symbols_in_scope' or 'get_definitions' by focusing on exported symbols from a module rather than local symbols or definitions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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_symbols_in_scope' or 'get_definitions'. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing a module name) or exclusions (e.g., not for detailed type analysis). This leaves the agent without clear usage direction, scoring 2 for minimal implied usage from the purpose alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: no information about permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, output format, or whether it's a read-only operation. 'Get' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly confirmed.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. Every element (verb, resource, location constraint, language context) earns its place efficiently.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format, error handling) and usage guidance relative to siblings. It's adequate but has clear gaps given the complexity.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying location-based filtering. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all symbols visible at a specific location'), specifies the language context ('TypeScript/JavaScript file'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_module_symbols' (module-level) or 'get_type_at_symbol' (type-focused). It's specific about scope and resource type.

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 implies usage for symbol visibility at a location, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_module_symbols' (for module-level symbols) or 'find_references' (for finding usages). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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: it doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., invalid file paths or symbols), performance characteristics, or what the output looks like (though there's no output schema). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Get type information') and specifies the domain and scope concisely, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or output format, and while the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially compared to sibling tools in the server.

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 parameter semantics beyond implying that 'symbol' refers to TypeScript/JavaScript identifiers and 'location' involves file paths and line numbers, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 verb ('Get type information') and resource ('for a TypeScript/JavaScript symbol at a specific location'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_type_in_module' or 'get_definitions', which likely serve related but distinct purposes in the TypeScript/JavaScript analysis context.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_type_in_module' or 'get_definitions', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate versus others in the server's toolset.

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

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. It states the action ('Get detailed signature information') but does not describe the return format, error conditions, performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits), or side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 action ('Get detailed signature information') and specifies the target ('specific type from a module') with useful examples of type categories. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without 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 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., what 'detailed signature information' includes), error handling, and behavioral context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has insufficient information to use this tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Context file for resolving relative imports' for filePath). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed signature information for a specific type from a module', specifying the type categories (function, class, interface, type alias, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_module_symbols' (which lists symbols) and 'get_type_at_symbol' (which analyzes a location rather than a named type), though not explicitly. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from similar tools.

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_module_symbols' (for listing types) or 'get_type_at_symbol' (for analyzing a symbol at a location). It implies usage for detailed type analysis but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

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 describes the core functionality but lacks details about response format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is accurate but minimal in behavioral context.

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 communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the response structure or behavioral characteristics to be truly complete.

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%, with the single parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, maintaining the baseline score appropriate when schema documentation is complete.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available MCP tools'), specifying what information is included ('with descriptions and categories'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_symbols_in_scope' or 'get_definitions' by focusing on tool metadata rather than code analysis.

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 implies usage for discovering available tools, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to other tools in the context of tool discovery workflows.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of updating TypeScript imports/references, which is valuable beyond basic move operations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error handling, permission requirements, or whether the operation is atomic/reversible.

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 action and key benefit. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete—it covers the primary purpose and a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on error conditions, return values, or advanced usage scenarios that would be helpful given the tool's complexity.

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 parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify path formats or the scope of 'overwrite'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('move a directory') and the key behavioral outcome ('updating all TypeScript imports and references automatically'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_file' (which presumably moves individual files) and 'rename_symbol' (which renames symbols rather than directories).

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 implies usage for moving directories in TypeScript projects where import/ref updates are needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'move_file' or when not to use it (e.g., for non-TypeScript projects). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions updating import statements, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a destructive operation (it moves files), what happens on failure, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a file mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action.

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 file mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like safety (destructive nature), error handling, and what the tool returns. The mention of import updates is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain path format conventions or import update mechanics). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Move'), resource ('TypeScript/JavaScript file'), and scope ('to a new location and update all import statements'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'rename_symbol' (renaming within same file) and 'mcp__typescript__move_directory' (moving directories).

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 implies usage for moving files with import updates, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'rename_symbol' for renaming symbols or 'mcp__typescript__move_directory' for moving directories. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose that this is a destructive mutation (renames symbols globally), potential side effects (e.g., breaking references), error conditions, or output format. This is inadequate for a complex refactoring tool with significant behavioral implications.

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and scope, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex, destructive refactoring tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context about mutation behavior, error handling, and what happens after renaming (e.g., success confirmation or diff output), leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying that 'oldName' and 'newName' refer to TypeScript symbols. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 ('Rename'), the target ('TypeScript symbol'), and scope ('across the codebase'), with specific examples of symbol types (variable, function, class, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_symbol (destructive removal) and find_references (read-only search).

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 delete_symbol or find_references. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a TypeScript project) or exclusions (e.g., not for non-TypeScript files), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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