reclaim-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool marks a task as IN_PROGRESS and starts a timer, which implies mutation and state change, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error conditions (e.g., if task is already in progress), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the return description could be more specific. There's minimal waste, but slight room for improvement in brevity.

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 one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains the basic action and parameter, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, errors) and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 adds that 'task_id' is 'The task ID to start working on', providing basic meaning beyond the schema's type (integer). However, it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., valid ID ranges) or examples, leaving gaps. With one parameter, this is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 ('Start working on a task') and specifies the effect ('marks as IN_PROGRESS and starts timer'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'restart_task' or 'stop_task', 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist and not already be in progress), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'restart_task', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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