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 provides minimal behavioral information. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what format the milestones are returned in, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. '取得します' implies reading data, but lacks specifics about the operation's characteristics.

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. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. The description is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation with one parameter.

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 data is returned (milestone fields, format), whether there are access restrictions, or how results are structured. The agent would need to guess about the return format and operational characteristics.

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 parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions '指定したプロジェクト' (specified project) which corresponds to the projectId parameter but provides no additional context about valid project IDs or format requirements.

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 ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('マイルストーン一覧' - milestone list) for a specified project. It distinguishes from siblings like get_project (general project info) and get_project_notes (project notes), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like get_project_notes or get_tasks.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this is appropriate versus other project-related tools, or any limitations. It simply states what the tool does without context.

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