Things MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing the implementation method ('Uses AppleScript') and platform constraint ('macOS only'), which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't detail aspects like performance, error handling, or result format, keeping the score moderate.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key constraints. Every word earns its place without redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a search tool with one parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers basic purpose and platform limits. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., result format or pagination), and it lacks details on search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matches). Given the simplicity, it's adequate but has clear gaps in 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter fully documented. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning that the search matches against 'titles and notes,' but this is largely redundant with the schema's description. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Search for to-dos by title or notes content.' It specifies the verb (search) and resource (to-dos), and mentions the search scope (title or notes). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search' or 'get-todos', which might offer similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 provides some usage context by stating 'Uses AppleScript (macOS only),' which implies platform restrictions. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'get-todos' from the sibling list, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions beyond the macOS note. This leaves room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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