productive-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 mentions 'fuzzy-search' and default limit behavior, but lacks critical details: whether this is read-only (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'fuzzy' means operationally. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by an 'Args:' section with parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage but good parameter explanation in the description, plus an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), the description is moderately complete. However, for a search tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention read-only nature and typical use cases to be fully complete.

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 successfully explains both parameters: 'query' as 'Partial name or number' with examples, and 'limit' as 'Max matches to return' with default value. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on query format constraints.

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: 'Fuzzy-search projects by name or number.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (projects), and method (fuzzy search by name/number). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'productive_list_projects' which might list all projects without search.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'productive_list_projects' for unfiltered listing or specify scenarios where fuzzy search is preferred over exact matching. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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