cronometer-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description lacks details on permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent/reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. It mentions the prerequisite of using get_repeated_items but does not fully describe the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 in the first sentence, followed by a usage guideline and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, 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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details like error handling or side effects, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.

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 adds meaningful context by explaining that repeat_item_id is 'The ID of the repeat item to delete' and references get_repeated_items to find it, clarifying the parameter's purpose and source beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, it does not specify format constraints or validation rules.

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 ('Delete') and target resource ('a recurring food entry'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_fast' or 'remove_food_entry' which handle different resource types. The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 explicitly directs users to 'Use get_repeated_items to find the repeat_item_id,' providing clear context for when to use this tool (after identifying the item via get_repeated_items). However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'remove_food_entry' for non-recurring entries.

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