FDEP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'enhanced' and 'advanced options' but doesn't explain what these entail—such as output format details, performance implications, or any limitations. This is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, failing to disclose key behavioral traits.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more specific. The brevity is appropriate, but it lacks structural elements like bullet points that might aid clarity.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'enhanced' means, what the output looks like, or how it differs from siblings. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the 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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 'Generate enhanced function call graphs with advanced options' states the action (generate) and resource (function call graphs) but is vague about what 'enhanced' means and how it differs from the sibling tool 'get_function_call_graph'. It doesn't specify what makes it 'enhanced' or what 'advanced options' entail, leaving the purpose unclear compared to alternatives.

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_function_call_graph' or other analysis tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no context for selection among the many sibling tools.

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