FDEP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether results are paginated (given the 'limit' parameter), what format the returned callers are in (function names, full signatures, etc.), whether it includes indirect callers, or if there are any performance considerations for large codebases.

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 states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information.

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?

For a read-only query tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It tells what the tool does but doesn't address important contextual questions about result format, scope (direct vs indirect callers), or relationship to similar tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more about what gets returned.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how 'module_name' affects the search, what happens when it's omitted, or provide examples of valid 'function_name' formats. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all functions that call a specific function'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_function_callees' (which would show functions called by a specific function) or 'find_cross_module_calls' (which might have overlapping functionality), so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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 for code analysis (like 'get_function_callees', 'get_function_call_graph', 'find_cross_module_calls'), there's no indication of when this specific caller-focused tool is preferred over other dependency analysis tools.

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