Clink MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists milestones and shows progress/status, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error conditions, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions. It could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral information.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (auth, errors, pagination). For a list operation with filtering, more guidance on usage and constraints would improve completeness.

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 significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains all three parameters: 'group' accepts slug or ID, 'status' filters by active/closed with default behavior, and 'limit' sets maximum returns with default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., slug patterns) or the exact meaning of 'null' defaults.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('milestones for a Clink group'), and mentions what information is shown ('progress and status of each milestone'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_milestone' (singular) and 'create_milestone', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_projects' or 'list_proposals' beyond the resource type.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), when not to use it, or compare it to siblings like 'get_milestone' (for single milestone) or 'list_projects' (for related resources). The parameter descriptions imply filtering capabilities but don't offer usage context.

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