FastMCP Development Assistant

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation with potentially open-ended results. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it specifies the source ('MCP公式サイト') but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what format the document returns in. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Japanese sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple fetch operation 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 this is a simple read operation with annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint) and scope (openWorldHint), and no parameters to explain, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about what format the architecture document returns in (HTML, PDF, etc.) or any error conditions, which would be helpful context for a fetch operation.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to do so. A baseline of 4 is correct for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully documents the (empty) input requirements.

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 action ('取得します' - fetch/retrieve) and the resource ('MCP公式サイトからアーキテクチャドキュメント' - MCP official site architecture document). It's specific about what it retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch-fastmcp-readme' or 'fetch-fastmcp-versions' which also fetch documentation from similar sources.

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 this specific architecture document is needed versus other documentation tools like 'fetch-fastmcp-readme' or 'analyze-npm-types', nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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