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 key behavioral traits: it updates the DEFAULT schedule (implying a mutation/write operation), applies to all future dates, and involves finding templates by name. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., if template not found), or rate limits. The description adds some context but is incomplete for a mutation 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 paragraph states the core purpose, the second clarifies scope (DEFAULT schedule), and the third explains the process. The Args section is well-structured with examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics effectively. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., error cases, side effects) to achieve full 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'template_name' is explained as the name of a saved macro target template with examples, and 'days' is described as comma-separated day names or 'all' with examples and default behavior. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, which only lists titles and types.

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 ('Set the recurring weekly macro schedule'), the resource ('weekly macro schedule'), and the mechanism ('by assigning a template to days'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_macro_template' (which creates templates) and 'set_macro_targets' (which sets targets for specific dates) by emphasizing it updates the DEFAULT schedule for all future dates.

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 on when to use this tool: for setting the DEFAULT recurring weekly schedule (not just specific date overrides). It mentions using existing saved templates or recently created per-date templates. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'set_macro_targets' for date-specific overrides.

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