Project MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists tasks and returns a summary view, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are paginated, or potential rate limits. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that cover purpose and output format without wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating filtering from output characteristics.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format beyond 'summary view organized by status and priority', leaving the agent uncertain about the data structure. For a tool with multiple siblings and filtering options, more context about behavior and output is needed.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'optional filtering' generically, which doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond the schema. This 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 tool's purpose: 'Lists all tasks with optional filtering' specifies the verb (list) and resource (tasks), and 'Returns a summary view of tasks organized by status and priority' adds detail about the output format. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_task' (single task) and 'search_tasks' (likely more complex search), though not explicitly named.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't specify when to choose this over sibling tools like 'search_tasks' or 'get_next_task', nor does it indicate prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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