sailfishos-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool creates files ('structure, RPM spec, and QML scaffolding') which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose important behaviors like whether it overwrites existing directories, requires specific permissions, has side effects on the system, or what happens on failure. For a tool that creates multiple files with 14 parameters, this is insufficient.

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. Every word earns its place: 'Bootstrap' establishes the action, 'SailfishOS application project' specifies the target, and 'correct structure, RPM spec, and QML scaffolding' enumerates the key outputs without redundancy.

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 complex tool with 14 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial context about behavioral traits, error handling, and practical usage scenarios. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations explaining the tool's operational characteristics.

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 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'correct structure' which relates to the template parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about template differences or parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 specific action ('Bootstrap a new SailfishOS application project') and the resources created ('correct structure, RPM spec, and QML scaffolding'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sailfish_build or sailfish_deploy by focusing on initial project creation rather than building, deploying, or adding metadata.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing SailfishOS SDK installed), when to use sailfish_add_chum_metadata instead for existing projects, or when other sibling tools like sailfish_add_feature might be more appropriate. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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