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. 'Analyze' suggests a read-only operation, but the description doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, output format, or side effects. It lacks details on what 'analyze' entails—whether it returns a graph, list, or summary—which is critical for a tool with 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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Analyze type dependencies and relationships'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a brief statement.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and rich sibling context, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from similar tools, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer. For a dependency analysis tool with no structured output guidance, this is inadequate.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'depth' affects traversal or what 'include_dependents' implies in practice. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 type dependencies and relationships' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('analyze') and target ('type dependencies and relationships'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from several similar siblings like 'analyze_type_relationships', 'analyze_cross_module_dependencies', or 'build_type_dependency_graph', leaving ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.

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 multiple sibling tools focused on type analysis (e.g., 'analyze_type_relationships', 'get_type_details', 'build_type_dependency_graph'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This forces the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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