SQLite Project Memory MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions switching context and reconnecting the database, which implies a state-changing operation, but lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., impact on existing connections), error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 effect. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is minimal due to the gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'project_root' is used to switch context, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema, but doesn't explain the parameter's format, constraints, or examples. This provides marginal value, meeting the baseline for low coverage without fully addressing the gap.

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 ('Switch project context') and the resources affected ('root + db + export path'), with the additional effect 'reconnect database'. It specifies a concrete verb and scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_context' or 'bootstrap_project_memory', which keeps it from 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for changing project settings but doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or direct comparisons to siblings such as 'get_project_context' for retrieval or 'bootstrap_project_memory' for initialization.

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