reclaim-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves settings, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent about its behavior.

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 well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second sentence provides return value information. There's no wasted text, and 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 that the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, it could be more complete by mentioning authentication needs or differentiating from siblings, given the lack of annotations.

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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. A baseline of 4 is applied since it doesn't add unnecessary information, but it's not a perfect 5 because it doesn't explicitly acknowledge the lack of parameters.

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: 'Get current focus time settings for the user.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('focus time settings'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_focus_settings' or 'get_focus_insights', which prevents 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when it should be used over 'get_focus_insights' or 'update_focus_settings', nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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