Repsona MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('取得します'), it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes user details beyond basic information, or has any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 that this is a read operation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of user information is returned, whether there are filtering options, or how this differs from other user/project retrieval tools. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'projectId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (it only mentions '指定したプロジェクト' - specified project, which corresponds to the projectId parameter). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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' - retrieve/get) and resource ('指定したプロジェクトに参加しているユーザー' - users participating in the specified project), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'get_my_projects', which would be needed for a score of 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. There are multiple sibling tools that retrieve project-related information (e.g., 'get_project', 'get_project_activity', 'get_project_notes'), but the description offers no comparison or context for choosing this specific user-focused retrieval tool.

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