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. It clearly indicates this is a write/mutation operation ('set', 'overrides'), which is crucial behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like persistence across sessions or permission requirements.

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 perfectly structured: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance, then clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place 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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter mutation), no annotations, but with an output schema that documents return values, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, parameter meaning, and return structure, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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. It provides the parameter name and clarifies it must be an 'Absolute path to project root', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic string type. However, it doesn't specify format examples or validation rules.

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 ('set', 'overrides') and resource ('project root'), and explicitly distinguishes it from auto-detection. It differentiates from sibling 'get_project_root' by being a write operation versus a read operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('if auto-detection fails or gives wrong path') and when not to use it (when auto-detection works correctly). It implicitly contrasts with 'get_project_root' as an alternative for reading rather than setting.

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