TimeChimp MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors like invalid IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant details, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying essential information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what data is returned, format of the response, error handling, or authentication requirements. While the schema covers inputs well, the overall context for proper tool invocation remains incomplete.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'id' and 'expand'. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate documentation through the schema alone, though the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or provide examples.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific contact by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_contacts' by specifying retrieval of a single contact rather than a list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_by_id' tools for different resources, 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 when to choose 'get_contact_by_id' over 'get_contacts' for multiple contacts, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update_contact' or 'delete_contact'. There's also no indication of prerequisites or error conditions, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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