FDEP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'finds potentially unused imports' but doesn't explain what 'potentially' means, how accuracy is determined, whether it's a read-only analysis, performance implications, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly while conveying the core functionality.

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 (analyzing code for unused imports) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, result interpretation, or error handling, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective tool invocation in a code analysis environment.

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 (module_name, package_pattern, limit) with their types and optionality. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('unused imports in modules'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_imports' or 'get_import_details', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 'analyze_imports' or 'get_import_details', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context for selection among the many analysis-focused siblings, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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