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 beyond annotations by explaining the active board fallback logic, which affects how the tool behaves when board is omitted.

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 totaling 13 words. The first establishes scope (listing with filters), the second explains the active board fallback. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with comprehensive schema coverage and safety annotations, the description provides adequate context. The absence of output schema is noted, but the description sufficiently covers the input behavior and filtering capabilities.

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 coverage is 100% with all 4 parameters (board, column, priority, limit) fully documented. The description notes 'optional filters' which reinforces the schema, but does not add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States specific action (List) and resource (cards/frames). The 'frames' synonym suggests domain context (likely creative/production). However, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this versus sibling 'search_cards' or 'get_my_cards', which would be helpful given the overlapping functionality.

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 specific guidance on the 'board' parameter fallback behavior ('Uses active board if set'), which helps agents understand when the parameter can be omitted. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like 'search_cards' to clarify selection criteria.

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