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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a project already exists at the path, what 'boilerplate' specifically means, or what the expected output looks like.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the essential information ('Create a new project') with the additional detail ('with boilerplate') efficiently appended. Every word earns its place with no wasted verbiage.

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 creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral implications, error conditions, return values, or how it differs from related tools. The mention of 'boilerplate' hints at additional behavior but doesn't explain it sufficiently for an agent to understand the tool's full context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (name, type, path) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'boilerplate' means in relation to the parameters, what project types are available, or provide examples of valid paths.

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 ('Create a new project') and the resource ('project'), specifying it includes 'boilerplate' which adds useful context about what kind of project is created. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_directory' or 'smart_workspace_init', which might have overlapping 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. There are multiple sibling tools that could be related (create_directory, smart_workspace_init, update_project_config), but no indication of when this specific project creation tool is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.

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