productive-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), uses cached data, has automatic refresh timing ('every hour'), and provides a manual refresh alternative. It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but covers the essential operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential behavioral details in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information about return values and cache behavior without any fluff or repetition.

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 this is a simple read-only tool with 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation), the description is complete. It covers purpose, cache behavior, refresh alternatives, and distinguishes from siblings - everything needed for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool actually does with its cache behavior.

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 specific action ('List all active Productive.io projects'), the resource ('projects'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's 'from local cache' rather than a live API call. This differentiates it from productive_find_project which likely searches for specific projects.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('List all active... from local cache') and provides clear alternatives: wait for automatic cache refresh 'every hour' or 'call productive_refresh_cache to force it.' It also implicitly distinguishes from productive_find_project by indicating this lists ALL projects rather than searching.

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