mcp-pyright

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 states the tool returns reference locations, which is useful, but doesn't cover other behavioral aspects such as performance considerations, error handling, or how it interacts with the optional 'python_path' parameter. For a tool with no annotations, 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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 2 required), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality but could improve by adding more behavioral context, especially since no annotations are provided. The output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('code', 'position', 'python_path') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find all references to a symbol at a specific position.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('references'), and context ('symbol at a specific position'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_definition' or 'get_hover', which might also involve symbol analysis, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_definition' or 'check_types', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection.

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