FDEP 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. While 'analyze' suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this is a computationally intensive analysis, whether it requires specific permissions, what format the results take, or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this functionality and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration or preamble.

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 complexity of analyzing imports/dependencies, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the analysis produces (statistics? graphs? lists?), how results are structured, or what 'patterns' means in this context. With many similar sibling tools available, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use this specific tool effectively.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide examples of valid 'import_pattern' values, or clarify the relationship between 'module_name' and 'import_pattern'. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Analyze import patterns and dependencies for modules' - a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('import patterns and dependencies for modules'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'find_unused_imports' (which focuses on unused imports) and 'get_import_details' (which might provide raw data rather than analysis), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'analyze_cross_module_dependencies'.

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. With many sibling tools related to imports and dependencies (e.g., 'analyze_cross_module_dependencies', 'get_import_details', 'find_unused_imports'), there's no indication of when this specific analysis tool is appropriate versus those other options. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage information.

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