framedeck-mcp

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context that results are 'grouped by status' (organization pattern), but omits return format details, pagination behavior, or what happens when no active board is set.

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?

Single sentence of 9 words with front-loaded action verb. No redundancy or waste. Every word earns its place by conveying core purpose, filtering scope, and result organization.

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?

Adequate for a simple 2-parameter read operation with good schema coverage, but lacking given the absence of output schema. The description mentions grouping but does not describe the data structure returned, nor does it acknowledge the default board behavior mentioned in the schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is appropriately 3. The description implies filtering (assigned to current user) but does not add syntax details, accepted formats, or usage notes for the optional board and include_done parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the action (Get), resource (cards), and scope (assigned to current user), while distinguishing from siblings via the 'current user' filter and 'grouped by status' organization. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this versus list_cards or search_cards.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_cards, search_cards, or get_card_details. Does not clarify if this should be used before or after set_active_board, or when include_done should be true.

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