Anki MCP Server

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. It mentions random sampling and the goal of understanding note structure, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format of returned notes). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function and intent, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned sample includes (e.g., note fields, IDs), how randomness is implemented, or any behavioral traits like side effects. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('deck_name' and 'sample_size') in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the purpose of sampling for note structure understanding, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get a random sample of notes from a specific deck to understand typical note structure.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('notes'), and scope ('from a specific deck'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_deck_notes' or 'find_similar_notes', which prevents a score of 5.

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 implies usage for understanding note structure through random sampling, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_deck_notes' (which might retrieve all notes) or 'find_similar_notes' (which might search based on criteria). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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