aidemd-mcp/server

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 does well by describing the automatic naming enforcement behavior, rename triggers, and file type interactions. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like error handling, permissions needed, whether files are overwritten, or what happens if the directory doesn't exist.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then details naming rules, and finally explains each type. Most sentences earn their place, though the 'Types:' section could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 (naming rules, multiple file types, interactions) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the type parameter well, but doesn't cover the directory parameter's requirements, error conditions, or what success/failure looks like. For a file creation tool with behavioral complexity, more completeness would be 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantics of the 'type' parameter beyond the enum values: it details what each type represents (intent, research, both, todo, plan) and their behavioral implications, especially the naming interactions between intent and research types.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create new .aide spec files with automatic naming convention enforcement.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('.aide spec files'), and key functionality (naming enforcement). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on file creation rather than discovery, info, reading, validation, etc.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when creating .aide files with specific naming rules. It explains the different file types and their interactions (e.g., research.aide triggers renames). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools like aide_init or aide_upgrade.

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