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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action (fetching user info) and return format (connection status with user details), which covers basic behavior. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and action, the second describes the return format. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded with no redundant or unnecessary content.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and what it returns. However, with no annotations and a read operation that likely requires authentication, the description could benefit from mentioning authentication requirements or error handling for a more complete picture.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 specific action ('verify API connection by fetching current user info') and distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on connection verification rather than task/habit management. It explicitly mentions the resource being accessed (current user info), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 (verifying API connection) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'health_check' or other user-related tools. It provides clear functional context but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion guidance for sibling tools.

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