backlog-mcp

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting a non-read-only operation, but the description implies a read-only summary function. However, the description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format (array with epic_id, title, status, counts, stories) and clarifies the tool's scope ('high-level summary'), which helps the agent understand its behavior despite potential annotation contradictions.

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, followed by usage guidelines and return details in two concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (aggregating data across epics and stories) and lack of output schema, the description compensates well by detailing the return structure. However, it does not address potential limitations like data freshness or error handling, leaving minor gaps in completeness for a tool with destructive annotations.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, as there are none, and it efficiently focuses on the tool's output and usage instead, adding value without redundancy.

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 verbs ('Get a high-level summary') and resources ('all epics and their story counts broken down by status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_stories' by focusing on aggregated summaries rather than detailed listings, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 usage guidance: 'Useful for situational awareness at the start of a session, without reading every file.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for quick overviews) versus alternatives like 'get_story' or 'list_stories' (for detailed information), offering practical context for selection.

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