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 creates files and directories, implying a write operation, and mentions 'strict templates' and 'proper structure,' giving some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens if the directory already exists (beyond the 'overwrite' parameter), leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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, starting with the core action ('Initializes the .project/ directory') followed by specifics. Both sentences earn their place by detailing what is created and when to use the tool, with zero wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and basic behavior. However, as a mutation tool with 3 parameters, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., file permissions, template sources) and return values, making it minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('project_name', 'project_description', 'overwrite') with clear descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how parameters affect file creation), resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('initializes', 'creates') and resources ('.project/ directory' with named files like 'index.md', 'TODO.md', etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on bootstrapping a new project structure rather than updating or querying existing components.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to bootstrap a new project with proper structure,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., using sibling tools like 'check_project_state' first), which prevents a perfect score.

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