Repsona MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('取得します' - get/retrieve) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires permissions, has rate limits, or returns real-time data. For a 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to clarity. No waste or redundancy is present.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, usage, or output format. With no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally mention the return type (e.g., integer count) or authentication needs, but it doesn't, leaving gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't add unnecessary param details.

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 verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('受信トレイの未読件数' - inbox unread count), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_inbox' (which likely retrieves messages) by focusing only on the count. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_my_tasks_count' or other count-related tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'get_inbox' (for full inbox data) or 'update_inbox' (for modifying inbox state), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication needs. Without any usage context, it scores low.

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