cronometer-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a server-side operation, copies all entry types, is additive (does not remove existing entries), and specifies the scope. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, but covers the core behavior adequately for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by details on scope and behavior, and ends with clear parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (a bulk copy operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and usage context, providing all necessary information for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively without over-explaining.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly defines both parameters (source_date and destination_date) with their roles ('copy FROM' and 'copy TO') and format ('YYYY-MM-DD'), compensating fully for the schema's lack of documentation. This is essential for the agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 ('copy all diary entries') and resources ('from one date to another'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_food_entry or remove_biometric. It specifies the scope ('ALL entries: food, exercise, notes, biometrics') and the additive nature, making 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 clear context for when to use this tool: to copy all diary entries between dates. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on bulk copying rather than individual entry operations. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, such as using individual add/remove tools for partial updates.

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