framedeck-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal value beyond the 'tags' synonym; it does not clarify pagination, caching, or the structure of returned label objects.

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?

Extremely brief (four words) with no redundant language. However, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification rather than earning a perfect score for 'appropriately sized' given the lack of output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fails to document the return structure (e.g., label name, color, ID fields) or the scoping behavior (which board's labels), leaving significant gaps for an agent attempting to use the returned data.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics where none exist.

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 the basic action (List) and resource (labels/tags), and the 'tags' synonym helps clarify the domain. However, it fails to specify the scope of 'all' (e.g., active board, organization-wide), which is ambiguous given the Trello-like context of sibling tools.

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 invoke this tool versus alternatives like 'get_board_overview' or 'get_card_details' that might also return label information, nor does it mention prerequisite context (e.g., active board selection).

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