codecks-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 'dashboard' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how data is formatted, or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that lists the dashboard categories. It's front-loaded with the tool's purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by including a verb. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately concise.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, how categories are prioritized, or any behavioral nuances, leaving gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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 (project, owner, limit, stale_days) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or affect the dashboard output, meeting 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 states the tool provides a 'PM focus dashboard' with categories like 'blocked, stale, unassigned, and suggested next cards', which gives a general idea of what it displays. However, it lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'generate') and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_cards' or 'planning_status', making it somewhat vague.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'list_cards' or 'planning_status', leaving the agent with no context for selection.

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