Aedifion MCP Server

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but fails to specify behavioral details such as sorting order (chronological?), pagination defaults (does null return all or first page?), or error conditions (e.g., invalid project_id).

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 compact with no wasted prose. The Args block is necessary given the schema lacks descriptions, though the structure is slightly utilitarian rather than narrative.

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?

Minimal but adequate given an output schema exists. The description covers the basic retrieval operation and parameter purposes, but omits pagination logic and sibling relationships that would help an agent understand the full comment lifecycle (add/get/delete).

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 Args block compensates by documenting all three parameters. While 'Page number' and 'Items per page' are somewhat tautological, 'The project's numeric ID' clarifies the expected type and reference for project_id.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('comments for a project'), identifying the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_task_comment' to clarify this retrieves project-level rather than task-level comments.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description lacks information on when to use pagination (page/per_page) versus retrieving all comments, and does not indicate maximum values for per_page or behavior when parameters are null (default).

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