Code-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'generates' files and configurations, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, has side effects on the file system, or provides any output/confirmation. The 'production-ready' claim is vague without elaboration.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second emphasizes the convenience aspect. There's no redundant or unnecessary 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters (including an array), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after generation (success/failure indicators), file system impact, or error conditions. The 'production-ready' claim needs qualification given the complexity implied by the parameter choices.

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 no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., compatibility between frontend/backend choices), what 'features' might include, or the implications of 'none' selections. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate despite the lack of additional semantic context.

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 ('generates') and resources ('complete full-stack project structure with all necessary files and configurations'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on project scaffolding rather than analysis, debugging, or configuration generation.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'one command to create a production-ready project' which implies when to use it (initial project setup), but offers no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or alternatives among sibling tools like 'analyze_architecture' or 'plan_task' that might be relevant for project planning.

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