Project MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action (moving files and logging with timestamps/task IDs), which covers basic behavior, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects (e.g., whether the original file is deleted or retained elsewhere). This leaves gaps for a mutation tool, though it does add some useful context beyond the schema.

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 and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core action and usage context. Every sentence earns its place by adding value (e.g., the second sentence explains when to use it and the logging details), with no wasted words or 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 complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and usage well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return values, which are important for a tool that modifies files. The high schema coverage helps, but more context would improve completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or provide examples beyond implied usage). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Archives a processed thought file') and the resource ('thought file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'archive_task' or 'list_archived_thoughts'. It specifies the destination path ('.project/thoughts/todos/.archive/') and the additional logging function, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this after you've created tasks from a thought file to keep the active thoughts folder clean'), which helps differentiate it from tools like 'process_thoughts' or 'get_thought'. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, such as 'delete_task' or 'manage_project_file', which prevents a perfect score.

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