audit_project_mcp_state

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 mentions auditing and producing a migration plan but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only analysis, what permissions are required, if it modifies any data, or the format of the output. For a tool with potential migration implications, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the complexity of the task.

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 complexity (auditing and migration planning), the lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. However, the presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, which slightly mitigates the gap. It adequately states the purpose but misses key behavioral and parameter details.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the two parameters ('statePath' and 'includeLegacyScan') are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters—what they represent, their expected formats, or how they affect the audit. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter usage.

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 ('audit', 'produce') and resources ('MCP project artifacts/layout version', 'migration plan'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'upgrade_project_mcp' or 'ensure_project_mcp_current' by focusing on auditing and planning rather than execution, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upgrade_project_mcp' or 'ensure_project_mcp_current', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for migration planning but lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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