vscode-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks installation and responsiveness but does not detail what 'responding' entails (e.g., network checks, timeout behavior), potential error conditions, or output format. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and reliability.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Check if...'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding, earning its place with zero waste.

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 diagnostic nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the check entails (e.g., returns a boolean, error details), how results are interpreted, or any dependencies. For a tool that verifies extension status, more context on behavior and output expectations is needed to fully guide the agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'targetProjectPath' clearly documented as 'Path to the project folder we are working in.' The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond this, such as path format requirements or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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: 'Check if the VS Code MCP Extension is installed and responding.' It specifies the verb ('check') and the resource ('VS Code MCP Extension'), making the action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_extension_port', which might also relate to extension status, leaving room for slight ambiguity in sibling 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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid project path, or compare it to siblings like 'get_extension_port' for extension-related queries. Without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, the agent lacks context for optimal tool selection.

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