UnClick MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is 'critical for cross-session continuity,' implying persistence of data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like where summaries are stored, who can access them, whether they're editable, or error conditions. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose statement, timing guidance, and content requirements. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity (7 parameters, write operation) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and timing well but lacks behavioral transparency about persistence, access, or error handling. The schema provides parameter documentation, but the description doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by mentioning 'key decisions, open loops, and topics discussed,' which maps to the 'decisions,' 'open_loops,' and 'topics' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Write a session summary') and resource ('session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_fact' or 'search_memory' by focusing on end-of-session documentation. It explicitly mentions the purpose is 'critical for cross-session continuity,' which adds important context beyond just the tool name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'at the end of a session' and 'BEFORE the session ends (when the user says goodbye, or context is running low).' It doesn't mention alternatives among siblings, but the timing guidance is clear and actionable for an agent.

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