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 adds valuable behavioral context about sorting (priority_score descending) but omits other important traits like whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or what happens if the session file doesn't exist. It mentions 'List' which implies safety, but doesn't explicitly confirm this.

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 efficiently structured with a clear one-sentence purpose statement followed by an Args section. Every sentence earns its place—no filler text, and the parameter documentation is concise yet complete.

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 that an output schema exists (covering return values), the description adequately covers the input parameters and core behavior. It successfully documents the complex path resolution logic. Minor gap: doesn't mention error handling scenarios (e.g., file not found), but this is acceptable given the parameter complexity handled.

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 excellently compensates by documenting all three parameters. It explains path resolution logic for session_file (absolute vs relative), conditional requirements for base_dir, and valid enum values for status_filter ('pending', 'in_progress', 'completed', 'skipped').

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 provides a specific verb ('List') and resource ('items in a session'), and explicitly states the sorting behavior ('sorted by priority_score descending'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like obo_get_item (single item retrieval) and obo_list_sessions (different resource).

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 implicit usage context through the Args section, explaining when base_dir is required ('Required if session_file is a bare filename'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like obo_get_item or obo_next, and doesn't state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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