Debugging MCP Server

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 adds valuable context beyond basic functionality: it describes the implementation ('Uses ripgrep when available, falls back to a recursive file walk'), which helps set performance expectations. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core functionality and subsequent sentences adding implementation details and return values. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and return values, but lacks details on error cases or output format specifics. Since there's no output schema, more clarity on the return structure would be beneficial, though the current description is adequate for basic 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers, such as explaining the 'query' pattern format or 'path' scoping in more detail. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verbs ('search across workspace files') and resources ('codebase'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_recent_commits or run_tests. It specifies what type of search it performs ('fast text search') and what it returns ('matching file paths, line numbers, and line content'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for text searching in code files but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no sibling tools with similar search functionality listed, so no differentiation is needed, but it lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other methods.

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