sailfishos-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action 'Add' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this modifies project files irreversibly, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides any output/confirmation. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the core purpose with examples, with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (adding features to a project, implying mutation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after invocation, potential errors, or the impact on the project, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 documents all three parameters (projectDir, feature, name) with descriptions and an enum for 'feature'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'new feature' to an 'existing SailfishOS project', with specific examples (page, cover, service, D-Bus interface, etc.) that distinguish it from siblings like sailfish_create_project (which creates new projects) or sailfish_build (which builds projects).

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 specifies 'to an existing SailfishOS project', providing clear context for when to use this tool (after project creation). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as sailfish_create_project for new projects instead.

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