aidemd-mcp/server

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly describes the tool's behavior: the two-call pattern, what each call returns, that the tool writes files directly to disk, that the agent never sees file content, the wizard pattern requirement, specific handling for 'mcp' and 'ide' categories, and the upgrade surface details. This provides comprehensive behavioral context beyond what parameters indicate.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, but it's quite lengthy with detailed procedural instructions. While all content is valuable, some sections (like the 5-step agent instructions and IMPORTANT wizard pattern details) could potentially be streamlined. The structure is logical but not maximally concise.

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 (two-call pattern, multiple categories, file writing behavior) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It explains the return format for both calls, the upgrade surface, category-specific handling, framework support, and the required interaction pattern. This fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantic meaning of the category parameter in the two-call pattern: 'Omit on the first call to get a metadata-only summary' and 'with category param: The tool writes all differs/missing files directly to disk.' It also lists all category values and provides context about framework auto-detection, though it doesn't add syntax details beyond the schema.

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: 'Compare the AIDE methodology artifacts in this project against the canonical versions and return structured JSON results grouped by category.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('AIDE methodology artifacts'), and scope ('in this project'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by stating 'This is NOT for editing user .aide specs — it inspects methodology infrastructure only.'

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this when the user asks to update AIDE, sync AIDE, refresh AIDE, check for AIDE updates, or bring AIDE up to date.' It also distinguishes from alternatives by stating it's not for editing user specs, and outlines a two-call pattern with clear when/when-not instructions for the category parameter.

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