Deslop MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool 'fixes' patterns (implying mutation) and provides examples of what gets fixed, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether changes are destructive, what permissions are required, error handling, or what happens when the tool runs (e.g., does it modify files in place?).

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 clearly communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'fixing' entails (e.g., modifies files in place, creates backups), what the return value looks like, or error conditions. The examples help but don't provide complete operational 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 fully documents both parameters (path and dryRun). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('fix') and resource ('auto-fixable slop patterns in code files'), and provides concrete examples of what gets fixed ('verbose comments, debug logging, etc.'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tools (deslop_analyze, deslop_diff), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 its siblings (deslop_analyze, deslop_diff). It mentions what the tool does but gives no context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate versus alternatives, or any exclusion criteria.

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