Repsona MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '作成します' (creates) implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this creates a draft or published project, what happens on conflict, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in Japanese that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a basic creation tool, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with additional context. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns project ID, status), what validation occurs, or error conditions. Given the complexity of project creation and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and outcomes.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear Japanese descriptions for all parameters (name, fullName, purpose), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 '新しいプロジェクトを作成します' (creates a new project) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'create_project' without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_project_note' or 'create_task' that also create resources. While it clearly indicates a creation action, it lacks detail about what kind of project or what system it operates in.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling creation tools (create_project_note, create_task, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific project creation tool is appropriate versus those other options. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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