reclaim-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a write operation ('Log time') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, whether time logging is reversible, or how it affects task status. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose for a simple tool. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' line could be more concise given the output schema exists.

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 no annotations, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more guidance on usage and constraints would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic meaning for all three parameters: 'task_id' identifies the task, 'minutes' specifies duration, and 'notes' adds optional context. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid minute ranges.

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 ('Log time spent') and resource ('on a task'), specifying it uses Reclaim's planner API. It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_task' or 'stop_task' by focusing on time logging rather than task lifecycle management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible time-related operations in the sibling set.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'mark_task_complete' or 'update_task' that might also track time. Usage is implied only by the tool name and basic description.

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