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 behavior aspects. The description adds value by specifying it returns a list of matching tasks and mentions optional filtering, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description adds some useful context without contradicting 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 appropriately sized with a clear opening sentence followed by a structured Args section. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, and each sentence serves a purpose, such as explaining the tool's function and detailing parameters. However, the Args section could be more integrated into the flow rather than listed separately, slightly affecting structure.

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 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return type. With annotations providing safety and behavioral hints, and schema coverage at 100%, the description adequately supports agent usage. It could improve by addressing sibling differentiation or output details, but it meets most contextual needs effectively.

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 all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description's Args section repeats much of this information (e.g., filter for 'active', date formats as YYYY-MM-DD), adding minimal extra meaning. It does clarify that 'text' searches in both title and description, which slightly enhances understanding, but overall, the schema carries the heavy lifting, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 searches for tasks across the account using various criteria, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like worksection_get_all_tasks by mentioning filtering capabilities, though not explicitly naming alternatives. The purpose is well-defined but could be more precise about differentiation.

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 through the mention of 'various criteria' and parameter explanations, suggesting when to apply filters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like worksection_get_all_tasks or worksection_get_tasks, and provides no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is contextually implied but not clearly articulated.

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