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. While it mentions searching and filtering, it doesn't describe important behaviors like whether results are paginated, what format they return, if there are rate limits, or how the search pattern matching works (exact, substring, regex). This is inadequate for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 search operation with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or important behavioral aspects like case sensitivity or matching algorithms. The description should provide more context for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'name pattern' and 'module filtering', which aligns with the schema's 'pattern' and 'module_pattern' parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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: 'Search for classes by name pattern with module filtering'. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('classes'), and key constraints ('by name pattern with module filtering'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_classes' or 'search_types', which would require a 5.

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 many sibling tools like 'list_classes', 'search_types', and 'get_class_details', there's no indication of when this search tool is preferred over those options or what specific scenarios it addresses.

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