Code 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 mentions 'detailed statistics' but doesn't specify what kind of statistics, whether the analysis is read-only or modifies files, performance implications, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably performs complex file analysis.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 tool that analyzes file differences with detailed statistics, the description is insufficient given the absence of annotations and output schema. It doesn't explain what 'detailed statistics' means, what format the output takes, or behavioral aspects like whether it handles binary files, encoding issues, or large files. The context signals indicate this is a non-trivial operation that needs more complete documentation.

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, clearly documenting both parameters as file paths. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as file format requirements or path validation rules. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 as analyzing differences between two files with detailed statistics, which is a specific verb (analyze differences) applied to resources (two files). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'compare_files' or 'get_diff_stats', which appear to offer similar functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_files' or 'get_diff_stats' from the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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