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. It states the tool finds function calls across modules but doesn't explain key behaviors: what format the results are in, whether it's a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, or how it handles large codebases. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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, concise sentence: 'Find function calls that cross module boundaries.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant words, and efficiently communicates the tool's intent without unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the sentence earns its place by defining the action and scope.

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 cross-module calls and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like result format, pagination, or error handling, which are crucial for a tool that likely processes code analysis queries. With no structured data to compensate, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (source_module, target_module, limit) with their types and optionality. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of module patterns or usage scenarios. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without 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: 'Find function calls that cross module boundaries.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('function calls') with a clear scope ('cross module boundaries'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'analyze_cross_module_dependencies' or 'get_function_callers,' which might also involve cross-module analysis, leaving some ambiguity.

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 function calls, modules, and dependencies (e.g., 'analyze_cross_module_dependencies,' 'get_function_callers'), there is no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of context makes it challenging for an agent to select this tool appropriately among the options.

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