Worksection MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about what details are returned (description, subtasks, files, relations) and mentions the 'extra' parameter for additional data, which provides useful behavioral information beyond annotations.

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 a clear purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return value summary in just three sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool with comprehensive annotations and good schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains what details are returned and parameter usage. The main gap is no output schema, but the description partially compensates by listing return elements. Slightly more detail on response structure would make it complete.

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 documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by listing examples of what 'extra' can include ('text', 'html', 'files', etc.) and clarifying that id_task is for a 'specific task', but doesn't provide format details or constraints beyond the schema.

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' and resource 'detailed information about a specific task', distinguishing it from siblings like worksection_get_all_tasks (list) and worksection_get_tasks (likely filtered list). It specifies retrieving details for a specific task rather than multiple tasks.

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 when detailed information about a specific task is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like worksection_get_tasks or worksection_search_tasks. It provides clear context (specific task details) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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