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 adds useful context by detailing the return format ('List of cards with their fields and info') and providing search syntax examples, which aids in understanding how the tool behaves. However, it lacks information on potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and followed by structured sections for args, returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value, such as the search operators list, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating examples more tightly.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and usage examples. The output schema likely handles return value details, so the description's focus on search syntax and examples is sufficient, though it could benefit from mentioning any prerequisites or constraints.

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 meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'query' parameter with examples (e.g., 'deck:Default', 'tag:python') and common search operators, and clarifies the 'limit' parameter's purpose ('Maximum number of results to return'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific action ('Search for cards in Anki') and resource ('cards'), using Anki's search syntax. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'add_flashcard' (creation), 'list_decks' (deck listing), and 'get_deck_stats' (statistics) by focusing on card retrieval through queries.

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 clear context for usage by explaining that it searches 'using Anki's search syntax' and includes common search operators, which helps users understand when to apply this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as 'list_decks' for deck-level queries.

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