Amazing Marvin MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'efficient date filtering and categorization,' which adds some behavioral context about performance and output structure. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'categorization' entails. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines and alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with one optional parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and alternatives. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling or the 'debug' parameter's effect.

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 1 parameter ('debug') with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, but since it's a single optional boolean with a default, the lack of parameter info is less critical. The description compensates by explaining the tool's scope and alternatives, though it doesn't add meaning to the 'debug' parameter itself.

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: 'Get completed tasks from past 7 days with efficient date filtering and categorization.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('completed tasks'), and scope ('past 7 days'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'get_all_tasks' or 'get_tasks', though it does mention two specific alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use when you need to review recent accomplishments or productivity patterns.' It also names two specific alternatives for different use cases: 'get_completed_tasks_for_date(date)' for specific dates and 'get_productivity_summary_for_time_range()' for custom time ranges.

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