Elenchus MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'analyzes' and 'shows' effects, suggesting a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires a valid session, has side effects (e.g., caching), rate limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds clarifying detail in the second. Both sentences earn their place by defining the tool's function and scope without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose but lacks completeness for a predictive analysis tool. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., list of files, dependency graphs), potential limitations, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing basic parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'changedFile' and 'changedFunction' relate to modifications, but doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., if 'changedFunction' is optional or how it refines analysis) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('analyze ripple effect', 'shows which files and functions will be affected') and identifies the resource ('code change'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'elenchus_get_diff_summary' or 'elenchus_get_issues' by focusing on predictive impact analysis rather than reporting existing changes or problems.

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 implies usage context ('by modifying a specific file') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'elenchus_evaluate_edge_cases' or 'elenchus_get_context', leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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