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 'analyze' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be, or any constraints like rate limits or permissions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and rich sibling context, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, output expectations, or usage differentiation, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly beyond basic parameter input.

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 fully documents all 3 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'include_imports' and 'include_dependents' interact or what 'analyze' entails. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Analyze module dependencies and imports' states the tool's purpose with a clear verb ('analyze') and target ('module dependencies and imports'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_module_details', 'get_import_details', or 'analyze_imports'. It lacks specificity about what kind of analysis is performed.

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 for dependency and import analysis (e.g., 'analyze_imports', 'get_import_details', 'get_type_dependencies'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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