codecks-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 adds valuable context: 'No auth needed' clarifies permission requirements, and the operations list gives insight into what the tool can do. However, it lacks details on rate limits, side effects, or output format, preventing a score of 5.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral context and operations. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse 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 (1 parameter with enum, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose, auth, and operations, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or how it differs from siblings. This makes it minimally viable but not fully complete for reliable agent use.

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 lists operations ('snapshot, report, compare_templates'), which aligns with the enum in the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide additional semantics like what each operation does or expected inputs/outputs, so it meets the baseline but doesn't add significant value beyond the schema.

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: 'Track token usage of planning files over time.' It specifies the resource (planning files) and the action (track token usage over time). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'planning_status' or 'planning_update', which prevents a score of 5.

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 some usage context by listing operations ('snapshot, report, compare_templates'), which implies when to use specific functions. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'planning_status' or 'planning_update') or mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond 'No auth needed.'

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