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 states the tool 'gets' class definitions with filtering, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter in schema), error handling, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral depth.

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 class definitions') and adds essential filtering details. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be beneficial 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?

The description mentions filtering by 'module or pattern', which aligns with the 'module_name' and 'pattern' parameters in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds marginal value by summarizing the filtering options but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('class definitions'), and it mentions filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_classes' or 'list_types', which appear to have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'search_classes' or 'list_types' from the sibling list. It mentions filtering by module or pattern but doesn't specify scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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