Scalene-MCP

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it lists files (implying a read-only operation), specifies sorting ('sorted alphabetically'), and details constraints like pattern matching and exclusions. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error handling, or performance aspects like rate limits, which could be useful for a tool with file system access.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are organized efficiently, with each sentence adding value—no redundant or wasted words. It balances detail with brevity, making it easy to scan and understand 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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, file system operations), no annotations, and an output schema present (implied by 'Returns'), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return format, and the output schema handles return values, so no additional explanation is needed. It adequately addresses the tool's functionality without 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'pattern' as a glob pattern with examples, 'max_depth' as maximum directory depth, and 'exclude_patterns' as comma-separated patterns to exclude. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions, providing clear semantics for all three parameters.

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 verb ('List'), resource ('project files'), and scope ('matching pattern, relative to project root'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_project_root' (which returns only the root) and 'list_profiles' (which lists profiles, not files). It specifies the filtering mechanism ('matching pattern') and context ('relative to project root'), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 implies usage for searching files in a project with pattern matching, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze' or 'compare_profiles'. It provides context ('relative to project root') but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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