Things MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing the implementation detail 'Uses AppleScript (macOS only)', which is useful context beyond annotations, but doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error handling or output format.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds critical implementation context. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (single parameter, read-only operation) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and platform constraint, but doesn't explain what 'Get' entails (e.g., returns project details) or error cases, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without extra value.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific project by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-projects' or 'get-todo-by-id' beyond mentioning the resource type, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 by specifying 'Uses AppleScript (macOS only)', which provides platform constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-projects' or 'search', leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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