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 states the tool retrieves tasks but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a task management system.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'today's task list' means (e.g., date interpretation, timezone handling), what the return data includes, or any error conditions. For a tool in a task management context with siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper use.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, as there are none to explain, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('tasks from today's task list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTasks' or 'getBacklog', which likely retrieve tasks from other contexts, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 for retrieving today's tasks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getTasks' or 'getBacklog'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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