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 describes a read-only list operation but doesn't mention potential behaviors like pagination, error handling, or data format. For a tool with zero 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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences earn their place by stating what the tool does and its intended use, with no wasted words or overly verbose explanations.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on behavioral aspects like what 'port registry file' entails or the return format. It's adequate as a minimal description but could benefit from more context for full understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't add unnecessary param details, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('all available projects from the port registry file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'open_project' or 'get_context_tabs', which might also involve project-related operations.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Use this tool to help the user select which project they want to work with,' which suggests a context of project selection. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives among sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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