Nuanced 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. It describes the tool's function but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it works on saved or unsaved code, how it handles errors, or if there are rate limits. The description is functional but misses key operational context needed for safe and effective use.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by elaboration and parameter details. It avoids redundancy and uses clear sections (Args, Returns). However, the second sentence is somewhat repetitive of the first, and the structure could be slightly tighter by combining related ideas.

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 complexity (dependency analysis with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters well but misses behavioral aspects like safety, performance, and error handling. The return value description is vague ('A list of all functions and files'), lacking format details. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves gaps in operational understanding.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'file_path' is for a specific file and 'module_name' matches patterns like 'app.auth' or 'auth.users', clarifying how parameters work semantically. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it could note that only one parameter should be used at a time or provide examples of valid paths.

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: 'Find all module or file dependencies in the codebase' and 'Identifies all function dependencies for a file or module in the active repository.' It specifies the verb ('find', 'identifies') and resource ('dependencies', 'modules/files'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_change_impact' or 'get_function_call_graph', which likely have related but distinct purposes.

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 mentions analyzing dependencies but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for impact analysis vs. 'analyze_change_impact' or for dependency graphs vs. 'get_function_call_graph'. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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