Memory Bank 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 '验证' (verify) implies a read-only check, the description doesn't specify whether this tool requires authentication, has rate limits, returns detailed error messages, or what happens if verification fails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 one Chinese phrase ('验证项目状态和文件完整性'), which directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple verification tool.

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 of verifying both 'project status and file integrity', no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'status' or 'integrity', what format the results take, or whether this is a lightweight check versus a comprehensive audit. The description should provide more context for proper tool selection.

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 adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the 'projectId' parameter is documented in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain how the projectId relates to the verification process or provide any additional context 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 '验证项目状态和文件完整性' (Verify project status and file integrity) states a clear purpose with a specific verb ('验证' - verify) and scope (project status and file integrity). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also check status or integrity, and the scope remains somewhat vague about what 'file integrity' entails.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_document', 'list_projects', and 'van_init' that might relate to project or file operations, there's no indication of when 'van_verify' is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.

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