aidemd-mcp/server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits by listing specific validation checks (e.g., detects orphaned specs, naming conflicts), which helps understand what the tool does. However, it does not cover aspects like error handling, output format, or performance implications, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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 sized and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose ('Health check for .aide spec files') followed by a concise list of specific validation tasks. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient 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 the tool's complexity (multiple validation checks) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is fairly complete in explaining what the tool validates. However, it does not describe the return values or error conditions, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. It compensates well but has minor gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'path' documented as a subdirectory to validate, defaulting to the entire project. The description does not add further parameter details beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high and there is only one parameter, the baseline is elevated. No additional semantic value is provided in the description.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as a health check for .aide spec files, listing specific validation tasks like detecting orphaned specs, missing specs, naming conflicts, broken links, orphaned research, and missing descriptions. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like aide_discover or aide_read by focusing on validation rather than discovery or reading.

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 implies usage context by specifying it validates .aide spec files in a project, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aide_discover or aide_scaffold. It provides clear context for validation tasks but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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