Tendem MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions pagination and returns a 'Paginated list', but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'Tendem tasks' entail. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' could be more integrated into natural language.

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, pagination), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return type. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error handling or prerequisites.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'page_number' as 0-indexed and 'page_size' with a range (1-100). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all potential nuances like default values or validation errors.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all Tendem tasks for the current user'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_task' (singular) or 'get_all_task_results', which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_task' (for a specific task) or 'get_all_task_results' (which might include results). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate compared to siblings.

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