Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'change tracking' but doesn't disclose key behaviors: what data is tracked, whether it's persistent, if it requires specific permissions, or how it interacts with Git (implied by the 'branch' parameter). For a tool that likely creates state, this is a significant gap in transparency about side effects and operational constraints.

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 ('Start a new coding session') and adds clarifying intent ('for change tracking'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (a state-creating tool for coding sessions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'coding session' entails, what 'change tracking' means in practice, or what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, status). For an agent to use this effectively, more context on behavior and outcomes is needed.

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 fully documents both parameters ('description' and 'branch') with their types and requirements. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a session context. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like format examples or interdependencies.

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 ('Start a new coding session') and purpose ('for change tracking'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'end_coding_session' and 'get_current_session' by indicating initiation rather than termination or querying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other session-related tools like 'rollback_session' or 'get_session_history'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a session must be ended first), when it's appropriate (e.g., at project start vs. mid-work), or what happens if a session is already active. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'end_coding_session', 'get_current_session'), this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about proper sequencing.

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