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 intelligent organization into sections and the merge/replace behavior, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like file creation permissions, error handling, or what happens when marking non-existent tasks as complete. The description adds some context but leaves gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second provides valuable behavioral context about section organization. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the file operation and section organization well, but doesn't address error conditions, permissions, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of a file creation/update operation, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions sections generally but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Creates or updates the TODO.md file'), target resource ('.project/ directory'), and purpose ('adding tasks, marking items complete, or updating task status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'update_task' by focusing on file-level operations rather than individual task objects.

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 ('when adding tasks, marking items complete, or updating task status'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use 'create_task' vs. this file-focused tool, though the file-centric nature is implied.

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