Teams Guide MCP

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 states the tool analyzes code quality based on guidelines, it doesn't describe what the analysis produces (report format, scoring system), whether it modifies files (likely read-only but not stated), performance characteristics, or error conditions. The description is too vague about the actual behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds context about the analysis framework. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more informative given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 code analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of output to expect (analysis report, score, recommendations), how comprehensive the analysis is, what happens with invalid inputs, or how the guide integration works. The agent would be operating with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior and results.

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 both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions '가이드 문서를 참조하여' (referring to guide documents) which loosely relates to the 'guideName' parameter but provides no additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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: '검사합니다' (inspects/examines) files based on clean code guidelines. It specifies the resource (files) and the framework (clean code guide). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_guide' or 'read_file' - this tool performs analysis while those likely retrieve documents or raw file content.

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 when this analysis tool should be chosen over simply reading the guide with 'get_guide' or examining raw file content with 'read_file'. There's no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or limitations.

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