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. It states the tool performs a mutation ('Restart') and returns an updated task state, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., invalid task_id), or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the sections into a single paragraph, but the structure aids readability.

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 (a mutation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' note), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error handling or side effects. The output schema should document return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but overall it's adequate with clear gaps in transparency.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides the parameter 'task_id' and clarifies it's 'The task ID to restart', adding meaning beyond the schema's type (integer). This adequately covers the single parameter, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., positive integers). With 0 parameters, baseline would be 4, but here it's effectively met due to full parameter explanation.

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 action ('Restart') and target resource ('a completed/archived task'), with the specific outcome of returning it to active scheduling. It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_task' or 'mark_task_complete' by focusing on reactivation rather than initiation or completion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'update_task' that might also modify task states.

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 implies usage for tasks that are 'completed/archived', suggesting when to use it (for reactivation) but not explicitly when not to use it or alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist and be in a restartable state) or compare to siblings like 'update_task' for state changes. The guidance is contextual but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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