Worksection MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as specifying that it returns 'detailed information' and listing example data types (name, status, dates, etc.), but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clear but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by providing necessary details without redundancy, though it could be more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an output schema, but the 'Returns' section adequately summarizes the response. It could improve by mentioning error cases or authentication requirements, but it suffices for this simple read operation.

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%, with both parameters (id_project and extra) fully described in the schema. The description adds slight value by clarifying that 'extra' provides 'additional data' and listing the comma-separated options, but this mostly repeats schema information. With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 the verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Worksection project'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'worksection_get_projects' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single project by ID, and from 'worksection_get_project_folders' by focusing on project details rather than folders.

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 implies usage context by stating 'by its ID', suggesting this tool is for retrieving details of a known project. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'worksection_get_projects' (for listing projects) or 'worksection_get_task' (for task details), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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