Agentic Tools MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'comprehensive details' but doesn't specify what happens if the task doesn't exist, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the return format looks like (though no output schema exists). For a read operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated immediately.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and provides some usage context, but for a tool that presumably returns detailed task data, the description should ideally mention what specific details are included or the response structure since no output schema exists.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (id and workingDirectory). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, usage nuances, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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: retrieving comprehensive task details including progress status, creation history, and full context. It uses specific verbs like 'deep-dive' and 'retrieve' (implied) and identifies the resource as 'task specifics'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'get_subtask' beyond mentioning 'task' focus.

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 implied usage guidance by stating the tool is 'essential for task analysis, status reporting, and understanding dependencies when planning work or conducting progress reviews'. This suggests when to use it but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'list_tasks' for overviews or 'infer_task_progress' for progress insights. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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