reclaim-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if task_id doesn't exist), rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 with three brief sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function, explaining the parameter, and describing the return value. The structure with labeled sections (Args, Returns) makes it easy to parse. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the basics: what it does, what parameter it needs, and what it returns. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks important context about when to use it, error conditions, and behavioral constraints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail.

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 explicitly documents the single parameter 'task_id' and clarifies it's 'The task ID to retrieve', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type declaration. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides adequate compensation. The 'Args' section clearly maps to the input 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'a single task by ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_tasks' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than a collection. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other getters like 'get_event'.

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 choose 'get_task' over 'list_tasks' for multiple tasks, or when to use it in conjunction with update/delete operations. There's no context about prerequisites or typical workflows.

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