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 detailing what information is returned (content, type classification, related specs, links). It doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or authentication needs, but provides substantial behavioral context for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste - first describes core functionality and return values, second provides usage guidance. Every element serves a clear purpose, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the most important 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about return values and usage sequencing. It could benefit from mentioning error cases (e.g., what happens if file doesn't exist) but covers the essential operational context well 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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the schema already documents it adequately. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score 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 ('Read') and resource ('.aide spec file') with specific scope ('full context'). It distinguishes from sibling 'aide_discover' by positioning this as a follow-up drill-down tool, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('after aide_discover to drill into a specific spec'), providing clear sequencing guidance. It differentiates from the discovery tool by indicating this is for detailed examination of individual files rather than initial scanning.

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