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. It discloses that the tool triggers a sync operation and mentions the outcome (cards available on mobile), but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires authentication, has rate limits, or potential side effects (e.g., data conflicts). It adds some context but is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences: the first states the action, and the second explains the outcome. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficient and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and outcome. However, for a sync operation that likely involves mutation and network calls, it lacks completeness in areas like error handling, return values, or dependencies, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and since there are none, it doesn't need to compensate. A baseline of 4 is given as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 a specific verb ('Trigger Anki to sync') and resource ('with AnkiWeb'), explaining it synchronizes local collections with the cloud. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'anki_connection_status' which might relate to sync status, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 by stating the sync makes cards available on mobile devices, suggesting when to use it (e.g., after adding cards). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'anki_connection_status' or prerequisites (e.g., internet connection), making it only moderately helpful.

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