SRC (Structured Repo Context)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') for diagnostic purposes, which implies it's non-destructive and likely safe. However, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, or what specific 'capabilities' are returned, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. There's no redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 simple diagnostic tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains the purpose and when to use it, though it could benefit from more detail about what 'capabilities' includes. Given the tool's low complexity and the absence of annotations/output schema, it's reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with a single optional parameter ('format') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, this is acceptable. The baseline for 100% coverage is 3, but the minimal parameter count (1) and clear enum values justify a slightly higher score.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('SRC server version and capabilities'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_index_status' or 'search_code' which focus on codebase operations rather than server diagnostics. It explicitly identifies the tool's purpose for verification of MCP server 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'to verify the MCP server is running correctly.' This clearly distinguishes it from alternatives like 'get_index_status' (for indexing status) or 'search_code' (for code queries), making it the appropriate choice for server health checks rather than codebase operations.

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