mcp_kanban_stopwatch

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. 'Manage' implies mutation operations (starting/stopping/resetting), but the description does not specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., whether stopping records time data), or error conditions. It lacks details on what 'get' returns or how time data is stored, leaving significant gaps for a tool with multiple action types.

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 with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (multiple actions like start, stop, get, reset) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances (e.g., what happens if you start a stopwatch that's already running). For a mutation-heavy tool with no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('action' with enum values and 'id' as card ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between actions or what 'id' refers to in the context of stopwatches. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Manage card stopwatches for time tracking', which includes a specific verb ('Manage') and resource ('card stopwatches') with a clear functional context ('for time tracking'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'mcp_kanban_card_manager' or 'mcp_kanban_task_manager' by focusing on stopwatch functionality, but could be more precise about what 'manage' entails (e.g., starting, stopping, etc.).

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 does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing an existing card, or differentiate from potential overlapping tools (e.g., if time tracking is also handled elsewhere). With no explicit usage context or exclusions, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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