Vaiz 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. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic purpose.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific task') and adds necessary detail ('by database ID or HRID') with an example. There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details (e.g., authentication needs, return format) that would be helpful for an agent. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'taskId' can be a 'database ID or HRID (e.g., "PRJ-123")', clarifying the format and examples. However, it doesn't cover constraints like 'minLength: 1' from the schema or other potential nuances. It compensates partially but not fully for the low 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific task'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tasks' (plural) by focusing on a single task, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from similar tools.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'by database ID or HRID', suggesting it's for retrieving a specific task when you have its identifier. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_tasks' (for multiple tasks) or 'edit_task' (for modifications). Usage is implied but not clearly contrasted with siblings.

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