register_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the effect ('so the MCP knows its path and framework') and lists valid framework values, including auto-detection. However, it does not mention persistence, potential side effects, or what happens if registration fails or is repeated, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists allowed framework values. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence provides useful information without waste.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, input parameters' meaning (via schema and added examples), and valid framework choices. It does not mention error behavior, idempotency, or return values, but for a simple registration tool with well-documented parameters, it is mostly complete. Sibling tools indicate this is part of a larger project management context.

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 explains all parameters. The description adds a bit of context by framing name examples ('backend', 'mobile', 'admin') and reaffirming the framework enum values. This is helpful but does not significantly go beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register') with a clear resource ('project') and provides concrete examples of project types (mobile, backend, admin). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like remove_project and scan_project by focusing on making the MCP aware of the project's path and framework.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: register a project so the MCP knows its path and framework. It implies use when you need to add a project to MCP's knowledge, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, though the sibling list shows distinct operations.

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