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. It mentions the tool lists events but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal on behavioral context.

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?

Well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. The description is appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the Args section could be slightly more detailed given the 0% schema coverage.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter info and mentions the return type. However, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, and behavioral constraints. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description could be more complete for a list operation with filtering parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic semantics for all three parameters (start/end as datetime filters, limit as maximum return count) and mentions the default for limit. However, it doesn't explain format details beyond 'ISO format' or constraints like valid ranges, which leaves gaps.

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 'List' and resource 'Reclaim-managed personal events', specifying the types (tasks, habits, focus time). It distinguishes from general 'list_events' by focusing on personal events, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_tasks' or 'list_habits' which are more specific siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tasks', 'list_habits', or 'list_events'. The description mentions it lists personal events but doesn't clarify when this broader view is preferable to the more specific sibling tools.

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