RTM MCP Server

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 mentions that the tool 'creates' (implying a write operation) and returns 'Created list details with transaction ID', but lacks critical details like permissions needed, whether this affects existing data, rate limits, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (so return values are documented elsewhere), 2 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, but no annotations and a mutation operation, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basics but lacks behavioral details like side effects or error handling that would be helpful for an agent.

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 meaningful context for both parameters: 'name' is described as 'Name for the new list' and 'filter' as 'Optional RTM filter to make this a smart list'. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by explaining what each parameter does beyond their types, though it doesn't specify RTM filter format or examples.

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 action ('Create a new list') and resource ('list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'rename_list' or 'archive_list' beyond the creation aspect, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rename_list' or 'archive_list', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for list creation. It simply states what the tool does without usage instructions.

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