framedeck-mcp

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false (write operation to external system). The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: the side effect that commit info is automatically added as a comment. Deducted one point for not explaining the idempotency implications (idempotentHint=false) or what happens on duplicate calls.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the primary action ('Link a git commit to a card'), followed by the secondary effect. Every sentence earns its place in conveying essential function and side effects.

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 100% schema coverage and comprehensive annotations (safety hints, openWorld), the description is appropriately complete. It covers the core function and automatic side effect. Minor gap: could mention error conditions or duplicate handling given idempotentHint=false, but not required for competent usage.

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 schema already documents all parameters including partial match support for card_id and SHA format flexibility. The description implies how parameters are used ('adds commit info as a comment') but doesn't add syntax, format constraints, or examples beyond the schema definitions, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses specific verb 'Link' with clear resources ('git commit' to 'card'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'add_comment' by specifying it 'Automatically adds commit info as a comment'—indicating this is for git integration specifically rather than manual commenting.

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 through the automatic comment behavior, suggesting when to use this tool (linking git metadata), but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative selection criteria versus manual comment addition or other card update tools.

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