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 this is a retrieval operation ('取得します'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the task doesn't exist. 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'details' encompass.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of details are returned, the response format, or any behavioral aspects. Given the context of multiple task-related retrieval tools and the lack of structured metadata, 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 both parameters (projectId and taskId) clearly documented in Japanese. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states '特定のタスクの詳細を取得します' which translates to 'Get details of a specific task.' This clearly indicates the verb (get/retrieve) and resource (task details), but it's somewhat vague about what 'details' include. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_task_activity_log' or 'get_task_history' that also retrieve task-related information.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_tasks' (list tasks), 'get_task_activity_log', and 'get_task_comments', there's no indication of when this specific detail-retrieval tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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