mcp-todo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '조회합니다' (retrieve/view) implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state this is safe/non-destructive. It also doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format/details the '상세 내용' (detailed content) includes.

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 gets straight to the point. Every word contributes to the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what '상세 내용' (detailed content) includes or what format it returns. Given the sibling tools include update and delete operations, more clarity about this being a safe read operation would be valuable. The description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered.

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 description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as '메모 ID' (memo ID). The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description.

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 action ('조회합니다' - retrieve/view) and resource ('특정 메모의 상세 내용' - specific memo's detailed content). It distinguishes from list_memos by specifying retrieval of a single memo's details rather than listing multiple memos. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_memo or delete_memo beyond the verb choice.

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 when to use get_memo versus list_memos, or clarify that this is for viewing existing memos while create_memo is for creating new ones. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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