Dida365 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation (获取/get), it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether results are paginated, sorted, limited in count, or if there are any authentication requirements or rate limits. For a tool that presumably returns potentially large datasets, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose and what information it returns. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. While it could potentially be more front-loaded with key behavioral information, the current structure is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and what information to expect in return. However, without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more behavioral context about how results are structured, ordered, or limited. The current description meets basic requirements but leaves gaps in operational understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. It focuses instead on what the tool returns, which is appropriate given the empty input schema.

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 tool's purpose: '获取所有未完成的任务列表' (get all incomplete tasks list) with specific details about what information is included. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_overdue_tasks or get_tasks_due_today by specifying '所有未完成' (all incomplete) rather than filtered subsets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_tasks_by_priority or search_tasks which might also return incomplete tasks.

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. With siblings like get_overdue_tasks, get_tasks_due_today, get_tasks_by_priority, and search_tasks that all retrieve tasks with different filters, there's no indication of when this broad 'all incomplete' query is preferable versus more specific filtered queries. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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