codebase_about

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It correctly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation by stating 'Display information.' However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or restrictions, which is acceptable for a simple info tool but not exhaustive.

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 consists of two concise sentences. It front-loads the purpose and includes a usage hint. Every part adds value with no fluff.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations missing, the description provides complete context for the tool's use. It explains what the tool does and why to use it, leaving no gaps for its simple read-only nature.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is fully documented (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe.

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 displays information about SocratiCode, its tools, and usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like codebase_search or codebase_context, which have different purposes.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to get a quick overview of the MCP tools and their purpose,' providing clear guidance. It could be improved by mentioning when not to use it, but the intent is clear enough.

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