MCP Basics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions execution but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or outputs results. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely performs code analysis.

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 with a single sentence that directly states the command. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool that likely performs code linting (a non-trivial operation), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool does beyond running a command, expected outputs, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient 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 the optional 'directory' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage context, but meets the baseline since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 executes 'npx eslint .' which indicates it runs ESLint, but it's vague about what ESLint does (code linting) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like mcp-formatter or mcp-bugfix. It provides a verb+command but lacks specificity about the resource or purpose.

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 mcp-formatter or mcp-bugfix. The description only gives the command to execute, with no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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