MCP servers this checkout declares

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Values are never read', which is a strong privacy guarantee. It also clarifies the scope of information returned. Since no annotations are provided, this disclosure adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover all potential behaviors (e.g., handling of missing .mcp.json files).

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides a concise, structured list of details. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant or explanatory fluff.

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 simple read-only inspection tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what information is available, including the privacy note. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that it returns a list of servers, but this is strongly implied by the phrasing.

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 already provides a complete description for the single 'dir' parameter, including its default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning information about MCP servers declared by the checkout, with a detailed list of what aspects are covered (launch command, package registry fetching, filesystem paths, environment variable names). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'inspect', making it slightly less actionable than ideal, though the title partially compensates.

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 usage is implied: an agent would use this when needing to know which MCP servers a checkout declares. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' guidance or reference to sibling tools (e.g., instruction_files) to differentiate use cases, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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