reclaim-mcp-server

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. While it mentions the tool creates a habit for 'auto-scheduling', it doesn't describe what that means operationally, what permissions might be required, whether the creation is immediate or scheduled, or any side effects. The description provides basic functional information but lacks important behavioral context for a creation 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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. While comprehensive, it maintains efficiency by avoiding redundancy and keeping explanations focused. Every sentence serves a clear purpose in documenting the tool's functionality.

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 complexity of 11 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job of documenting the input parameters. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context and usage guidelines for this creation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for all 11 parameters. Each parameter gets clear explanations of its purpose, format examples, defaults, and constraints, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Create a new smart habit') and resource ('for auto-scheduling'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'update_habit'. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does beyond just the name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_task' or 'update_habit'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual factors that would help an agent decide when this is the appropriate tool to invoke.

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