vscode-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a mutation tool (modifying files), requires user approval (interactive step), and has constraints (only for existing files). However, it lacks details on error handling, permission requirements, or what happens if approval is denied, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific usage rules. Each sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (mutation with user interaction), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, and key constraints. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which would be helpful for an agent. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in behavioral context.

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 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying 'filePath' must point to an existing file and 'newContent' is the proposed change. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding significantly.

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: modifying an existing file by showing a diff and getting user approval before applying changes. It specifies the verb ('modifying'), resource ('existing file'), and mechanism ('diff and user approval'), distinguishing it from direct file writing or new file creation. This is specific and actionable.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this instead of writing files directly' indicates the primary alternative to avoid, 'Only use this tool on existing files' sets a clear condition, and 'If a new file needs to be created, do not use this tool' names an exclusion scenario. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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