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 behavioral details. It doesn't disclose how the presentation occurs (e.g., UI prompt, list output), whether it's interactive, what happens on user selection, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('present detected workspaces', 'to user', 'for selection') earns its place by clarifying the action, target, and goal.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal but incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'present' entails behaviorally, what the user interaction looks like, or what happens after selection. For a tool that likely involves user interaction, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's acceptable given the lack of parameters. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters as it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 ('present') and resource ('detected workspaces') with a specific goal ('for selection'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_workspaces' (which likely just lists) and 'auto_select_workspace' (which selects automatically), but could be more explicit about how it differs from 'get_workspace' or 'set_workspace'.

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 after workspace detection (e.g., following 'detect_vscode_workspaces') and before selection, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'auto_select_workspace' or 'set_workspace'. It provides some context but lacks clear 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.