productplan-mcp-server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable reads. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the scope ('roadmap-level comments, not bar comments') and failure conditions ('roadmap_id not found'), which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 highly efficient and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and failure conditions in a structured format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, annotations provided), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and failure modes. The main gap is lack of output schema, but the description compensates well with clear behavioral context.

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 the single parameter 'roadmap_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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') and resource ('roadmap-level comments'), explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools by noting 'not bar comments' and naming the alternative 'get_bar_comments'. This provides precise 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 includes explicit 'USE WHEN' examples ('Show roadmap comments', 'Roadmap discussion') and 'FAILS WHEN' conditions ('roadmap_id not found'), with a clear alternative named ('get_bar_comments'). This gives comprehensive guidance on when to use and avoid this tool.

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