Smart Shell 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 states the tool 'Adds or updates' but does not clarify whether this is a mutation, what permissions are required, if changes are reversible, or any side effects like overwriting existing data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies state.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 likely mutation behavior (implied by 'Add or update'), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like return values, error conditions, or behavioral details, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'project-specific command override' but does not explain what 'projectName', 'key', or 'value' represent, their formats, or constraints. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 action ('Add or update') and the target ('project-specific command override'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'removeProjectCommand' by focusing on addition/modification rather than deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'executeCommand' or 'getProjectCommands'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'removeProjectCommand' or 'getProjectCommands'. The description implies usage for setting command overrides but offers no context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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