Codesight has 6 tools with reasonable naming (verb_noun pattern) and descriptions, but critical gaps undermine quality. Tool descriptions are present but lack actionable detail on when to use each tool vs. alternatives. Input schemas are visible but incomplete: most parameters lack type constraints (enums, ranges, patterns). Output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure. Error handling is absent, no recovery guidance or categorization. The tool set is well-composed (each does one thing), but parameter descriptions are generic and do not guide LLM behavior. No security considerations visible (no permission gates, audit trails, or secret injection patterns). Overall, this is a functional but under-specified tool suite typical of early-stage MCP servers.

• Document output schemas for all 6 tools. Specify field names, types, and whether arrays are paginated. Example: codesight_explore returns {modules: [{name, fileCount, lineCount}], entryPoints: [...], keyFiles: [...]}.
• Add enum constraints to 'action' parameter in codesight_idea_layer: {type: 'string', enum: ['generate', 'set']}. Add description: 'generate: auto-infer structure from code. set: apply custom structure (requires structure param)'.
• Enhance parameter descriptions with format hints. E.g., 'target: file::symbol format (e.g., src/utils.js::parseConfig). Omit for project overview.'
• Add error handling guidance to tool descriptions. E.g., 'If symbol not found, returns error with available symbols in that file. Call codesight_search to find the symbol first.'
• Document result limits and pagination. E.g., 'Returns up to 50 matches. Use offset/limit params to paginate.' Add offset and limit parameters to codesight_search.