codecks-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no authentication is required and creates specific files in the project root. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., file system changes), error conditions, or what happens if files already exist (though the 'force' parameter hints at this). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the minimal schema.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Create' (action), 'lean planning files' (what), specific file names (which files), 'project root' (where), and 'No auth needed' (important constraint). Zero 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose and behavioral context. It mentions authentication requirements and file creation specifics. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (success/failure indicators) or potential error cases, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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% (the 'force' parameter is fully documented in the schema). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 action ('Create lean planning files') and specifies the resources (task_plan.md, findings.md, progress.md) and location (project root). It distinguishes from siblings like planning_measure, planning_status, and planning_update by focusing on file creation rather than measurement or updates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with scaffold_feature which might also create files.

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 context (initial project planning) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like planning_update or scaffold_feature. It mentions 'No auth needed' which provides some usage context, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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