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. It states the tool retrieves tab information but lacks details on behavioral traits such as performance impact (e.g., with 'includeContent'), permissions needed, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters that could affect behavior significantly.

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, clear sentence that efficiently states the purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context.

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 is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what information is retrieved (e.g., tab titles, paths), how results are formatted, or implications of parameters. For a tool that provides context to an AI agent, more detail on output and usage constraints is needed.

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, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain why 'targetProjectPath' is required or how 'includeContent' affects retrieval). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('information about currently open tabs in VS Code'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_context_tabs' tool, which appears similar, so it doesn't achieve the highest score for sibling differentiation.

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 like 'get_context_tabs' or other context-providing tools. It mentions providing context for the AI agent, but this is vague and doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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