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. It mentions the tool returns analytics and recommendations, but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details about the response format beyond a vague list. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves data retrieval.

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 and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more detailed. It's front-loaded with the core 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 tool's complexity (analytics retrieval with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description's vagueness there is acceptable.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'start' and 'end' are dates in ISO format and provides examples (e.g., '2026-01-01'), clarifying the parameter usage effectively. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this compensation is adequate.

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 as 'Get focus time insights and recommendations,' which specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('focus time insights and recommendations'). It distinguishes from most siblings that deal with tasks, habits, or events, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_user_analytics' which might overlap in analytics scope.

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 when to prefer it over 'get_user_analytics' or other analytics-related tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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