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 only states it 'gets comprehensive context' without detailing what 'comprehensive' entails, how the context is structured, any limitations (e.g., file size, supported languages), or potential side effects. 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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It is appropriately concise without unnecessary words, though it could be more specific to improve utility without adding length.

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 a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'comprehensive context' means in terms of output, how it differs from sibling tools, or any behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for effective agent use.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'context_radius' interacts with 'include_dependencies' or what 'comprehensive context' includes. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get comprehensive context around a source location', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions 'source location' but doesn't clarify what type of context (e.g., code context, dependencies, relationships) or distinguish it from similar sibling tools like 'get_function_context' or 'find_element_by_location'. The purpose is understandable but vague.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_function_context' or 'find_element_by_location', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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