FDEP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves 'detailed information' including 'function counts and statistics', but doesn't specify what other details might be included, whether it's a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error conditions, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries a codebase.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific module') and adds specific details ('including function counts and statistics'). There's no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 code analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It hints at the return content ('function counts and statistics') but doesn't fully explain what 'detailed information' entails, the structure of the output, or behavioral aspects like error handling. This is inadequate for guiding an agent in a rich sibling toolset.

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%, with the single parameter 'module_name' fully documented in the schema as 'Name of the module'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., case sensitivity, module path conventions) or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific module', specifying it includes 'function counts and statistics'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_modules' (which likely lists modules without details) and 'get_module_dependencies' (which focuses on dependencies rather than internal statistics), but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 doesn't mention when to choose it over siblings like 'get_code_statistics' (which might provide broader statistics) or 'get_functions_by_module' (which might list functions without counts), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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