system

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the nature of each operation (e.g., 'test OmniFocus connection', 'get cache statistics'), which aligns with the annotations. It does not introduce any contradictions.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first lists capabilities, and the second provides explicit usage mappings. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 is a system utility with no output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers all key operations and their usage. It could explicitly mention that the tool is read-only (though annotations already do), but overall it is complete for its purpose.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters having descriptions. The description adds minor value by explaining the operation parameter's mapping in detail, but does not provide additional meaning for other parameters beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is for 'System utilities for OmniFocus MCP' and enumerates specific operations: version, diagnostics, metrics, cache. This provides a clear verb+resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools (analyze, read, write) which handle data operations.

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 maps operation values to their actions, e.g., 'Use operation="version" for version info'. This provides clear guidance on when to use each operation. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, though the context is implied.

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