FDEP 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 'comprehensive analysis' but doesn't describe what that analysis produces (e.g., report format, visualizations, metrics), whether it's computationally intensive, if there are rate limits, or what permissions might be required. For a 5-parameter analysis tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is limited. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's general purpose.

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?

For a 5-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the analysis produces, how results are formatted, whether there are performance considerations, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output based solely on the parameter schema.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured fields. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'threshold' interacts with 'limit') or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 states the tool performs 'comprehensive analysis of cross-module dependencies and coupling', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'comprehensive analysis' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_module_dependencies' by implying deeper analysis, but doesn't clearly articulate the exact verb+resource combination beyond the vague 'analysis'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_module_dependencies', 'find_cross_module_calls', or 'analyze_type_relationships'. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts that would help an agent choose between these similar-sounding analysis tools.

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