reclaim-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it pauses a timer and keeps the task active (not deleting or completing it). However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., impact on task state, user permissions needed), rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and key behavior, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the Returns section could be more informative given the output schema exists.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, or error handling. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context is needed for safe use.

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 meaning by specifying 'task_id' as 'The task ID to stop working on', clarifying its role. With only one parameter, this is sufficient, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., integer range).

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 ('stop working on') and resource ('a task'), with specific behavioral details ('pauses timer, keeps task active'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mark_task_complete' (which would finalize) and 'restart_task' (which would resume), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 context by mentioning 'pauses timer, keeps task active', suggesting this is for temporarily halting work rather than completing or deleting. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'mark_task_complete' or 'restart_task', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., task must be active).

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