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 operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'participating in' means operationally. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, 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?

Extremely concise single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling alternatives, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what 'participating in' means, what data is returned, or how this differs from other project retrieval tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand proper usage.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose rather than redundant 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 ('参加しているプロジェクト' - projects I'm participating in), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_projects' or 'get_project', leaving room for ambiguity about scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_projects' or 'get_project'. The description implies it's for projects the user participates in, but doesn't specify when this is preferred over other project retrieval tools.

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