Project MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns which files exist and provides a summary of project state, which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations, error conditions, or what format the summary takes. For a read-only diagnostic tool with no annotation coverage, this is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and specific files checked. The second sentence provides usage guidance. Every element adds value with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (simple diagnostic check), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides sufficient context about what it does and when to use it. However, without an output schema, the description could better specify what the 'summary of project state' includes to help the agent interpret results.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on what the tool does. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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: 'Checks the current state of project management files' and specifies which files it examines (.project/index.md, ROADMAP.md, TODO.md, STATUS.md, DECISIONS.md). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on state checking rather than creation, updating, or deletion operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this before making changes to understand what exists.' This implies it should be used as a preliminary step before modification operations. However, it doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or specify alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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