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. It discloses the return format ('template names, IDs, and their macro values'), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 return details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, 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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, return values, and usage context. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling or data freshness, slightly reducing completeness.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, but this is appropriate given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score above 3 for clarity in this context.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all saved macro target templates in Cronometer'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_macro_template' (creation vs. listing) and 'set_macro_targets' (setting vs. listing), providing clear differentiation.

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: 'Use this to find the template_name for set_weekly_macro_schedule.' This provides a clear alternative context and distinguishes it from other tools like 'get_macro_targets' by specifying its preparatory role for scheduling.

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