Repsona MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of retrieving subtasks, without mentioning any behavioral traits such as read-only nature (implied by 'get' but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or output format (e.g., list structure, pagination). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, contributing to clarity without waste.

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 context: no annotations, no output schema, and 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, performance), usage guidelines, and output expectations. For a tool in a server with many siblings (like update/delete operations), more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly and safely.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (both parameters are documented in Japanese as 'プロジェクトID' and 'タスクID'), so the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the relationship between projectId and taskId or provide examples. Thus, it meets the minimum but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 purpose: '指定したタスクのサブタスク一覧を取得します' translates to 'Retrieves a list of subtasks for a specified task.' It uses a specific verb ('取得します' - retrieves) and resource ('サブタスク一覧' - subtask list), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_task' or 'get_tasks', which lowers it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid projectId and taskId), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_task' (which might retrieve task details without subtasks) or 'get_tasks' (which might list tasks broadly). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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