Find Divergence

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 clearly states that the tool is a review hint, not a verified bug list, and that silence is a valid answer on consistent codebases. It also includes a CLI invocation hint. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects (though scanning is likely read-only) or error handling, which prevents a perfect score.

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 verbose and includes an extraneous shell command (sct --help) that is not essential for an MCP tool definition. The core explanation is clear, but the added CLI hint and repetitive phrasing ('functions that break a pattern their siblings follow' appears twice) make it less concise than it could be. A tighter version would front-load the core purpose and omit irrelevant instructions.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, output (functions breaking patterns), and the special case of silence. It covers the essential context for a scan tool with three parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings, and the inclusion of a CLI command that may not be applicable in all environments adds noise. Overall, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 for all three parameters (directory, max_findings, respect_gitignore), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The shell command hint is unrelated to parameter semantics.

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: finding peer divergence in a directory, specifically functions that break a call pattern their siblings follow. It gives a concrete example and distinguishes itself from a bug list, making it unambiguous. The verb 'find' and resource 'divergence' are specific, and it effectively communicates the core 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 implies it is for review purposes ('A review hint, not a verified bug list') and mentions it returns silence on consistent codebases, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool versus siblings like scan_directory or search_structures. There is no clear 'when not to use' guidance, so the agent must infer usage context.

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