Repsona MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if there are rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with 13 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 complex creation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what values are returned, or provide usage context. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.

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 85%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate for the 15% coverage gap.

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 '新しいタスクを作成します' (creates a new task) states the basic verb and resource but is vague about scope and lacks sibling differentiation. It doesn't specify what kind of task system this is or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_project' or 'update_task' in the sibling list.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other task-related tools like 'update_task' or 'get_tasks' from the sibling list.

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