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. 'Show git diff' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify output format, error conditions, or any side effects. It lacks details about what gets displayed, whether it's interactive, or how it handles repository state.

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?

Extremely concise at just two words, but arguably too brief. While there's zero wasted text, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail.

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 git diff tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how to interpret results, or provide context about git diff behavior. With no annotations and minimal description, important contextual information is missing.

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 (staged, file, cwd). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, relationships, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Show git diff' states the basic action (show diff) and resource (git), but is vague about scope and format. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'enhanced_git_diff' or 'get_diff_stats', leaving ambiguity about what specific diff functionality this provides.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enhanced_git_diff', 'compare_commits', or 'preview_changes'. The description provides no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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