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 valuable context about what 'full details' means through the 'extra' parameter explanation, which clarifies behavioral aspects of data retrieval beyond what annotations provide.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details and return information. It's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool, though the parameter explanations could be more integrated rather than listed separately. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return format adequately. However, it lacks explicit guidance on error handling or pagination, which could be relevant for a list 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the parameter explanations verbatim without adding new semantic context, such as format examples for 'id_project' or practical use cases for 'extra' options. It meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Get all tasks') and resource ('for a specific Worksection project'), distinguishing it from siblings like worksection_get_all_tasks (no project filter) and worksection_get_task (single task). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 specifying 'for a specific Worksection project,' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like worksection_search_tasks or worksection_get_all_tasks. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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