obo-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the atomic update behavior and the file path convention ({base_dir}/.github/obo_sessions/). However, it omits critical behavioral details such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the file exists), idempotency guarantees, or permission requirements for file system operations.

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 docstring format is well-structured with a summary line followed by an Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose—either defining the operation or parameter semantics. The length is appropriate given the need to compensate for zero schema coverage.

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 5-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and primary behavioral traits (atomicity, file location). Since an output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details, focusing instead on input requirements and side effects.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section comprehensively compensates by documenting all 5 parameters. It provides semantic meaning for base_dir (project root with path template), explains the auto-generation logic for session_filename, and details the structure of items (listing optional sub-fields like urgency, importance, effort).

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 opens with a clear action statement ('Create a new OBO session file') and specifies the atomic side effect ('update index.json atomically'). While it clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by verb ('Create' vs 'List', 'Mark', 'Update'), it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate use cases within the text.

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 its siblings (e.g., when to create a new session vs. updating an existing one with obo_update_field). There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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