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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does ('Get a comprehensive productivity summary') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify what 'comprehensive' includes (e.g., metrics like tasks completed, time spent), whether it requires authentication or specific permissions, if there are rate limits, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. It uses sections (Args, Examples) for clarity, but the 'Args' section could be more integrated into the main text. Every sentence adds value, such as explaining parameter interactions and providing examples, with minimal 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 tool's complexity (time-range analysis with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., what 'productivity summary' entails, any limitations). With no annotations and incomplete parameter coverage (missing 'debug'), it's adequate but has clear gaps for effective use.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the purpose of 'days' (number of days to analyze from today backwards), 'start_date' (overrides days), and 'end_date' (defaults to today), including defaults and examples. However, it doesn't mention the 'debug' parameter from the schema, leaving it undocumented. With 4 parameters and low schema coverage, the description compensates well but incompletely.

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 a comprehensive productivity summary for a specified time range.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('productivity summary') with scope ('for a specified time range'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_daily_productivity_overview' or 'time_tracking_summary,' which appear related but have different scopes.

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 includes examples of parameter usage but doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_daily_productivity_overview' or 'time_tracking_summary' for comparison. There's no indication of prerequisites, such as whether time tracking data must exist, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.

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