Amazing Marvin MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'both tasks and sub-projects' and warns about performance ('can be expensive' with recursive=True). It also notes the experimental nature ('may not work for all parent types'). However, it doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a read 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, parameter explanations, and a cautionary note. Every sentence adds value: the experimental warning is crucial, and the recursive cost warning is necessary. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description does well. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral notes (experimental, performance). The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, for a tool with hierarchical data and potential complexity, more detail on error cases or parent type limitations would enhance completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all 3 parameters: 'parent_id' as 'ID of the parent task or project', 'recursive' with its behavior and cost implication, and implies 'debug' through the experimental note. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail 'debug' parameter usage explicitly.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get child tasks of a specific parent task or project', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_all_tasks' or 'get_tasks' by focusing on hierarchical relationships. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_project_overview' or 'get_projects', which might also provide hierarchical 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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use when you need to see subtasks within a project or parent task.' It distinguishes from 'get_all_tasks' by focusing on hierarchy, but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or provide detailed alternatives among siblings like 'get_project_overview' for project-specific views.

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