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 what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't explain how similarity is calculated (e.g., algorithm, metrics), what 'signature and code' entails, whether results are ranked, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses clear terminology. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 similarity analysis, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like algorithm details, result format, or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output guidance, more context is needed to help the agent use it 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 meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't clarify parameter interactions, provide examples, or explain semantics like how 'similarity_threshold' applies to 'signature and code'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 functions similar to a given function based on signature and code'. It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('functions'), and criteria ('similar to a given function based on signature and code'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'group_similar_functions' or 'find_code_patterns', which appear related.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'group_similar_functions' or 'find_code_patterns', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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