backlog-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about filtering behavior and return format (array of objects with specific fields), but doesn't explain the destructive nature (implied by annotations) or other behavioral traits like rate limits or auth needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states purpose and filters, the second clarifies unfiltered behavior. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key details.

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 moderate complexity (filtered listing), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the return format (array of objects with fields) despite no output schema, but could benefit from mentioning pagination or limits. Sibling context is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema (including descriptions and valid values). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the optional filters and unfiltered behavior, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 stories') and resource ('from the project index'), including the scope ('all stories across all epics' when unfiltered). It distinguishes from siblings like get_story (single story) and get_index_summary (aggregated data) by focusing on filtered listing of story objects.

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 clear context for usage ('optionally filtered by epic, status, or type') and implies when to use it (for listing stories with optional filters). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., get_story for single stories, get_index_summary for summaries).

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