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 documents the selection algorithm (priority_score ordering and status precedence), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether calling this tool locks/assigns the item, triggers state transitions, or error conditions when sessions are empty.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and an Args section. The formatting is clear despite being embedded in a string, with no redundant or wasted sentences.

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 output schema exists (relieving the description of return value documentation), the description adequately covers the 2 parameters and retrieval logic. It could be improved by noting error states or side effects, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, requiring the description to fully compensate. It successfully documents both parameters: session_file clarifies the path format relative to {base_dir}/.github/obo_sessions/, and base_dir explicitly states its conditional requirement ('Required if session_file is a bare filename').

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] the next item to work on' with specific prioritization logic (in_progress items first by highest priority_score, then pending). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like obo_list_items (which returns all) or obo_get_item (specific lookup).

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 explains the internal prioritization algorithm (which implies when certain items are returned), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like obo_get_item or obo_list_items, and does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an existing session.

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