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. It states the tool returns 'today's scheduled tasks only' which implies read-only behavior and temporal filtering, but doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no tasks exist for today. It provides basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 perfectly structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core functionality, providing usage guidance, and listing alternatives. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy, making it highly efficient and front-loaded with the most important 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 the tool's simple nature (single optional parameter, output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It clearly defines scope, provides usage guidance, and references alternatives. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning authentication or error handling.

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 only one parameter (debug) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, but since there's only one optional boolean parameter with a clear name, the tool's core functionality doesn't depend on parameters. The description effectively communicates the tool's purpose without parameter discussion, which is appropriate given the minimal parameter set.

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 with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('today's scheduled tasks'), explicitly distinguishing it from siblings by specifying 'only today's scheduled items without overdue or completed items'. This precise scope differentiation makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 ('when you need only today's scheduled items without overdue or completed items') and names two specific alternatives (get_daily_productivity_overview and get_all_tasks) with their respective use cases, offering clear decision criteria for tool selection.

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