Knowledge MCP Server

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: it returns all tasks with content, completion status, rich markdown, task numbers, and order. It also outlines prerequisites ('Use TODO number from list_todos') and operational guidance (e.g., 'Review all tasks before starting', 'Check task dependencies'). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a tool with no 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 well-structured with sections like 'When to use this tool', 'Key features', 'You should', and 'DO NOT use when', making it easy to scan. However, it is verbose with redundant points (e.g., 'Returns all tasks with content' and 'Provides task numbers and order' overlap with 'Key features'). Some sentences, like 'Understanding task requirements' and 'Getting comprehensive task view', add little value and could be condensed for better conciseness.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides substantial context: it explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and even includes a return value example ('Returns: {success: bool, todo: {...}, tasks: [...], error?: str}'). This compensates well for the lack of structured fields. However, it could improve by detailing error conditions or response formats more explicitly, especially without an output schema.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('project_id' and 'todo_number'). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. However, it implies the need for a valid 'todo_number' from 'list_todos', which adds minimal context. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get all tasks in a TODO list with their completion status and full content.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('tasks in a TODO list'), and key attributes ('completion status and full content'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_next_todo_task' by emphasizing it returns 'all tasks' rather than just the next one.

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 guidance on when to use and when not to use this tool. It lists specific use cases (e.g., 'Reviewing full TODO list details', 'Planning task execution order') and explicitly states 'DO NOT use when: - Only need next task - TODO doesn't exist - Just need TODO overview'. It also references sibling tool 'list_todos' for obtaining TODO numbers, offering clear alternatives.

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