Maven Project Generator 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 'definir ou modifier' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this overwrites existing content, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how errors are handled. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a file modification tool.

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, clear sentence that states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point.

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 file modification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool executes (does it validate the XML? does it backup the original file?), what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. The context signals indicate this is a mutation tool, but the description lacks completeness for safe and effective use.

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 description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the 'content' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('definir ou modifier') and resource ('le contenu du pom.xml'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'add_any_file' or 'add_java_file', which might also modify files in a Maven project context.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other file modification tools in the sibling list, or any contextual constraints for its use.

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