Clink 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. It states the tool retrieves information ('Get detailed information'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 concise and well-structured, with the purpose stated upfront in a single sentence, followed by a clear Args section. There's no unnecessary information, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality. However, it could be more front-loaded by integrating the parameter info into the main description for better flow.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete. It covers the purpose and parameter basics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'milestone_id', adding semantic meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it only provides a basic label ('The milestone ID') without details on format, validation, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this compensates partially but not fully.

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: 'Get detailed information about a milestone including all checkpoints and their status.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('milestone'), and includes scope details ('all checkpoints and their status'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'list_milestones' beyond the resource focus.

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 when to choose 'get_milestone' over 'list_milestones' (for listing vs. detailed view) or 'get_project' (for project-level details), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a specific milestone ID. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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