Amazing Marvin MCP

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. 'Get categories' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the categories are returned in, if there are rate limits, or whether it returns all categories or a filtered subset. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words, front-loading the essential information. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic purpose.

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 tool's apparent simplicity (single optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but leaves important questions unanswered. With no annotations and multiple similar retrieval tools in the sibling set, the description should do more to clarify what 'categories' are and when to use this specific tool. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description itself is incomplete for proper contextual understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'debug', the description doesn't mention parameters at all. However, since there's only one optional parameter with a default value, and the tool likely functions without it, the baseline is appropriately high. The description doesn't need to compensate heavily for missing parameter documentation in this minimal parameter scenario.

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 'Get categories from Amazing Marvin' states the basic action (get) and resource (categories), but it's vague about what 'categories' refers to in this productivity context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get_' siblings like get_labels, get_projects, or get_goals, which all retrieve different types of data from the same system.

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 multiple sibling tools that retrieve different data types (labels, projects, goals, tasks, etc.), there's no indication of what makes categories distinct or when an agent should choose this specific retrieval tool over others.

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