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 only states the basic operation without mentioning permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what '詳細情報' (detailed information) specifically includes. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes '詳細情報' (detailed information) in the response, nor does it cover behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or error handling. Given the context of sibling tools that include various project-related operations, more completeness is needed.

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 single parameter 'projectId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond implying a specific project is required. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage where the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 ('プロジェクトの詳細情報' - project details), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_projects' (plural) or 'get_my_projects', but the singular focus on a specific project is implied through the parameter requirement.

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_projects' (for listing multiple projects) or 'get_my_projects' (for user-specific projects). The description only states what it does without contextual usage instructions or exclusions.

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