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 it 'gets' tasks, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes subtasks, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond basic purpose.

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 function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly despite being brief.

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 has 1 parameter with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and return values. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but improvements in transparency and guidelines would enhance completeness.

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 the parameter 'type' fully documented in the schema including enum values and descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'type' is used to specify which tasks to retrieve. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like default behaviors or parameter interactions.

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/fetch) and resource ('自分のタスク' - my tasks), specifying it retrieves tasks belonging to the user. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tasks' (general tasks) and 'get_my_tasks_count' (count only) by focusing on retrieval of user's own tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly mention filtering by type in the purpose statement, though this is implied.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_tasks' (which might fetch all tasks) or 'get_my_tasks_count' (which only returns a count). The description implies usage for fetching user's tasks with a type filter, but lacks context on prerequisites, error conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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