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 it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value, such as parameter details and return information, with no wasted words. However, the formatting with bullet points in the description text slightly reduces conciseness, but it remains efficient.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, analytics focus) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return overview. However, with no annotations, it lacks behavioral details like permissions or limits, and it doesn't fully address usage guidelines, leaving some gaps in context.

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 substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'start' and 'end' are dates in ISO format with examples, and 'metric_name' has specific enum values (DURATION_BY_CATEGORY, DURATION_BY_DATE_BY_CATEGORY). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics for all three 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 personal productivity analytics for the current user.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('personal productivity analytics'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_focus_insights or list_completed_tasks by focusing on analytics rather than raw data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_focus_insights, which might also provide analytics, keeping it from 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. It doesn't mention when to choose get_user_analytics over get_focus_insights or other sibling tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied (e.g., for analytics on user productivity), but no explicit guidelines are given.

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