codecks-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the dry-run option, which hints at a potentially destructive operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether this tool modifies data permanently, what permissions are required, or what happens to the original feature cards. For a tool with 'split' in its name (implying mutation) and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 with just two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and immediately following with a practical usage tip. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 3 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how splitting works, what 'lane sub-cards' are, or the implications of the various deck parameters. For a mutation tool with many parameters and no structured support, the description should provide more context to be complete.

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 only 11%, with most parameters lacking descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'dry_run=true' for previewing, but doesn't explain the purpose of other parameters like 'deck,' 'code_deck,' 'design_deck,' or the various skip options. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately for the undocumented 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 action ('batch-split') and target resource ('unsplit feature cards into lane sub-cards'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from other tools by focusing on splitting operations rather than creation, deletion, or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'scaffold_feature' which might also manipulate feature cards.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning 'dry_run=true to preview,' suggesting this tool should be used with caution and previewed first. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scaffold_feature' or 'update_cards,' nor does it provide context about prerequisites or exclusions beyond the dry-run suggestion.

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