Local Code MCP Server

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. While 'Read' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), performance considerations (e.g., file size limits), or the return format (e.g., text content, binary data). For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 ('Read a file from the project') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with zero wasted content, making it easy for an 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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases, return values, or usage context relative to siblings. While the schema covers the parameter, the overall description doesn't provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'Relative path from project root'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on path formats, examples, or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the 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 'Read a file from the project' clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('a file'), specifying it operates within the project context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_files' (which might list files without reading content) or 'search_code' (which might search within files), leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool is preferred.

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. It doesn't mention scenarios like reading specific file content versus listing files (with 'list_files') or searching within files (with 'search_code'), nor does it specify prerequisites such as file existence or permissions. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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