Worksection MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description warns about performance implications ('This may return a large dataset') and provides practical guidance on managing data volume. This enhances the agent's understanding of real-world usage considerations.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with the core purpose, provides parameter details in a clear Args section, specifies return values, and ends with important performance notes. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words, and critical information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

For a read-only list operation with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, this description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and important behavioral considerations (performance). The absence of an output schema is compensated by the clear return value description. No additional context is needed for this tool's complexity level.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's Args section essentially repeats what's in the schema without adding significant semantic context. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't add meaningful value beyond the structured data.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all tasks across all projects'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like worksection_get_tasks (likely project-specific) and worksection_search_tasks (search-focused). It explicitly mentions the scope 'across all projects' which differentiates it from more targeted alternatives.

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 alternatives: 'Use filter="active" or get tasks per project for better performance.' It directly addresses performance concerns and suggests specific sibling tools (implied by 'get tasks per project') as better alternatives for certain use cases, making the when/when-not guidance clear and actionable.

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