FDEP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'advanced pattern matching' but doesn't disclose what makes it advanced, performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a tool with complex nested parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, given the tool's complexity and the lack of annotations/output schema, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness rather than representing optimal conciseness.

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?

For a complex tool with 3 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling alternatives, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'advanced' means, what constitutes a successful match, how results are returned, or how this differs from simpler pattern matching tools. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.

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 parameters and their purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, with no value added by the description.

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 'Advanced pattern matching to find code structures' states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what constitutes 'advanced' or what 'code structures' means. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'find_code_patterns' by emphasizing 'advanced' matching, but doesn't clearly articulate the unique verb+resource combination beyond basic pattern matching.

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 like 'find_code_patterns', 'execute_advanced_query', or other analysis tools. The description implies it's for pattern matching but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose appropriately among the many sibling tools.

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