aidemd-mcp/server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining the tool's behavior: it reads local files, compares against server manifests, returns outdated artifacts and server version, and operates without parameters using the server's working directory. It doesn't mention error handling or performance characteristics, but covers core operational behavior adequately.

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 perfectly concise with three information-dense sentences that each earn their place: first explains the core function, second details the implementation approach, third provides usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what it does, how it works, and when it's used. The only gap is the lack of information about return format/structure, which would be helpful given no output schema exists.

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 schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'No parameters needed — uses the server's working directory,' which adds valuable context about how the tool obtains its inputs without requiring explicit parameters.

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 ('Check whether... are up to date'), identifies the resource ('host project's AIDE artifacts'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on version checking rather than discovery, initialization, or upgrade operations. It provides a complete operational picture of what the tool does.

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 explicitly states 'Called by the orchestrator at boot,' providing clear context for when this tool is used. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternative tools for similar functions, though the sibling list suggests related tools like 'aide_upgrade' for remediation.

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