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. The description mentions generating 'all necessary import statements,' which implies a read-only or analysis operation, but it does not clarify if this involves data mutation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or describes the output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, warranting a score of 2.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. This is an example of optimal conciseness and structure.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it only meets the bare minimum, resulting in a score of 3.

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, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional meaning, syntax details, or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'element_name' and 'source_module' interact). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description adds no extra value for parameters.

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: 'Generate all necessary import statements for a function or code element.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('import statements'), and the scope ('for a function or code element') is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'analyze_imports' or 'find_unused_imports', which reduces the score from a 5 to a 4.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'analyze_imports' or 'find_unused_imports', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for usage. This lack of comparative or situational advice results in a low score of 2.

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