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 authentication, what format the download returns (e.g., binary data, file path), potential rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., invalid hash). The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 for a tool that performs a potentially complex operation like file download. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content, download link), error handling, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.

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% (the 'hash' parameter is documented as 'ファイルハッシュ'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as hash format examples or constraints, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 action ('ダウンロードします' - downloads) and resource ('ファイル' - file) with a specific identifier ('ファイルハッシュ' - file hash). It distinguishes from siblings like 'upload_file' and 'delete_file' by specifying download functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all file-related tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_feed' or 'get_project_notes' which might also provide file access. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid file hash) or exclusions (e.g., not for streaming).

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