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 for behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('投稿します' - post) but does not specify permissions required, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, though it correctly indicates a creation action without contradiction.

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 without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse, though it lacks structural elements like bullet points due to its brevity.

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 does not cover behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication needs, or return values, and relies solely on the input schema for parameter details. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full context and operation.

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 all parameters documented in Japanese (e.g., 'プロジェクトID' for projectId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format details or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 '指定したタスクにコメントを投稿します' (Post a comment to the specified task) clearly states the action (posting a comment) and target resource (task). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project_note_comment' (for project notes) and 'update_task_comment' (for updating existing comments), but does not explicitly differentiate from 'create_project_note_comment' beyond the resource type.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task ID), exclusions (e.g., not for editing comments), or direct alternatives like 'update_task_comment' for modifying existing comments, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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