anki-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks connection status and returns version info, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not detail error handling, timeouts, or authentication needs. It adds basic context but lacks rich behavioral traits like rate limits or response formats beyond the return statement.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds return details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and zero waste.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and return values, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error cases). The output schema existence reduces the need for detailed return explanations, but the description still adds useful semantics.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate, and adds value by explaining the return type (Dict with connection status and version), compensating for the lack of output schema details in the context signals.

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 with specific verbs ('Check if AnkiConnect is responding' and 'get version info'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_flashcard or sync_anki that perform different operations. It explicitly identifies the resource (AnkiConnect) and the action (checking connection status and retrieving version information).

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 implies usage context (verifying AnkiConnect availability before other operations) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It suggests a diagnostic purpose, which helps differentiate from siblings like list_decks or search_cards, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or timing.

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