vscode-mcp-server

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 retrieving 'information about tabs' and that content 'may be large', hinting at performance considerations, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned (e.g., tab metadata vs. full content). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the main action and context, making it easy to parse. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by specifying the tool's unique function.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It clarifies the purpose and context (VS Code UI toggle) but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely on inference, making this a minimal viable description with clear gaps.

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 clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already explains (e.g., 'includeContent' for file content, 'selections' for specific ranges, 'targetProjectPath' for project folder). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with no 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: 'Retrieves information about tabs that have been specifically marked for inclusion in AI context using the UI toggle in VS Code.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('tabs'), and context ('marked for inclusion in AI context'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_active_tabs', which might retrieve all open tabs regardless of context marking.

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 minimal usage guidance. It implies use when tabs are marked for AI context in VS Code, but offers no explicit advice on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_active_tabs' or 'list_available_projects'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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