Code MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without detailing behavior. It doesn't explain what 'most appropriate' means (e.g., based on recent usage, project type), whether it's safe or has side effects, or what happens if no workspace is found, leaving significant gaps.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 (automatic selection implies decision logic) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover how appropriateness is determined, what is returned, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the schema, but doesn't add extra value beyond the baseline, warranting a score just below perfect.

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 action ('Automatically select') and resource ('most appropriate VS Code workspace'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_workspace' or 'present_workspace_choice', which prevents a perfect score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_workspace' or 'present_workspace_choice'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether workspaces must be detected first, or exclusions for when manual selection might be preferred.

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