obo-mcp

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context for path resolution (base_dir logic relative to .github/obo_sessions/), but fails to disclose mutation semantics, reversibility, side effects, or what the output schema contains.

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?

Efficient Args-based structure with zero redundancy. Each line documents exactly one parameter with precise constraints. Front-loaded purpose statement followed by detailed parameter specs.

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?

Adequate for a state-change tool with 4 parameters, given the output schema handles return value documentation. However, lacks workflow context (session advancement behavior) and safety implications of the skip action that would help an agent use it correctly in sequence with obo_next or obo_mark_complete.

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?

Critical compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The Args section comprehensively documents all 4 parameters, including conditional requirements (base_dir required if bare filename) and path resolution logic that the schema completely lacks.

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 core action ('Mark') and target state ('skipped') for an 'item'. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'obo_mark_complete' via the 'skipped' vs 'complete' state distinction, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 provided on when to use skip versus complete (obo_mark_complete), or workflow context (e.g., whether this advances to the next item). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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