Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enhanced' and 'multiple format options', but doesn't describe what 'enhanced' entails (e.g., better performance, additional features), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 states the core function without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details (e.g., specifying the type of changes) to improve clarity, but it avoids redundancy and waste.

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 a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'changes' refer to (e.g., git diffs, file modifications), what 'enhanced' means, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and sibling tools like 'preview_changes', more context is needed to guide effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Preview format', 'Number of context lines'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or typical values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 states the tool provides 'Enhanced change preview with multiple format options', which gives a vague purpose (previewing changes) but lacks specificity about what changes (e.g., git diffs, file changes) or how it differs from siblings like 'preview_changes' or 'enhanced_git_diff'. It mentions 'enhanced' and 'multiple format options' but doesn't clearly distinguish from similar tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'preview_changes', 'enhanced_git_diff', or 'git_diff'. The description implies it's for change previews but offers no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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