mcp-todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '생성합니다' (creates) implies a write operation, the description doesn't address permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves important behavioral traits unspecified.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and gets straight to the point.

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 this is a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after creation, what the return value might be, or any side effects. With siblings like get_memo and list_memos available, the description should ideally mention how the created memo can be accessed afterward.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage (both parameters have descriptions in Korean), the baseline score is 3. The tool description doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or provide examples, so it doesn't add value beyond the structured 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 as '새로운 메모를 생성합니다' (creates a new memo), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_memo or delete_memo by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_todo beyond the resource type. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose create_memo over create_todo, or any contextual constraints. With multiple sibling tools available, this lack of usage guidance is a significant gap.

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