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 mentions 'comprehensive statistics' but doesn't specify what data is returned, whether it's read-only (implied by 'get'), performance implications, or any limitations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive statistics' entails, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits. For a tool in a complex domain with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective usage.

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 for its single parameter 'include_details', which is well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is strong. No additional value is needed from the description here.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get comprehensive statistics about the codebase', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of statistics (e.g., lines of code, complexity metrics, dependency counts) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'analyze_function_complexity' or 'get_most_called_functions' that also provide statistical insights.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on specific analyses (e.g., 'analyze_function_complexity', 'get_most_called_functions'), the description offers no context about whether this is a general overview tool or how it complements others, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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