productplan-mcp-server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable reads. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies this is the starting point for OKRs ('START HERE'), mentions authentication failure conditions, and describes the empty-list return behavior when no data exists. No contradiction with 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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-like 'USE WHEN' and 'FAILS WHEN' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance without redundancy. The front-loaded 'START HERE' is particularly effective.

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 simple list tool with good annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and no parameters/output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, failure modes, and behavioral context. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning the return format (though 'empty list' implies a list structure).

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It gets a 4 (not 5) because it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters needed', but that's a minor omission given the context.

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 ('List') and resource ('all OKR objectives'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_objective' (singular) by specifying 'all' objectives. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., 'list_key_results'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides explicit usage guidance with 'USE WHEN' examples ('Show OKRs', 'What are our objectives?') and 'FAILS WHEN' conditions (API token invalid, empty list if no objectives). This gives clear context for when to use this tool and potential failure modes, exceeding basic requirements.

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