obo-mcp

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. While it mentions returning 'full detail,' it lacks information about error handling (e.g., item not found), caching behavior, idempotency, or side effects. The existence of an output schema is noted in context signals, but the description doesn't characterize the return value structure beyond the single phrase.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args section. There is minimal waste, though the Args format duplicates structural information already present in the schema (parameter names) rather than integrating descriptions into prose.

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 has an output schema (reducing the need for return value description) and only three parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It documents all parameters and states the retrieval purpose. However, it could improve by briefly mentioning the OBO domain context or error scenarios given the lack of annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting all three parameters in the Args section: session_file includes path resolution logic relative to {base_dir}/.github/obo_sessions/, item_id clarifies acceptable types (integer or string), and base_dir explains its conditional requirement. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 'Return[s] full detail for a single item,' specifying the verb (return), resource (item), and scope (single, full detail). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool obo_list_items or clarify when to use this versus other retrieval operations.

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 like obo_list_items, nor does it mention prerequisites (such as requiring an existing session) or error conditions. The Args section documents parameters but does not contextualize usage patterns.

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