WayStation MCP Server

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 'Retrieves tasks' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 ('Retrieves tasks from Asana') and immediately specifies filtering scope. There's zero wasted language, and every word earns its place by contributing essential information about the tool's function.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, auth needs) and output details. For a read operation with 4 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's minimally viable but leaves gaps in understanding full tool behavior and results.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing the filtering criteria ('project, assignee, and completion status'), which aligns with parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieves tasks') and resource ('from Asana'), and specifies filtering criteria ('filtered by project, assignee, and completion status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'searchAsanaTasks' by focusing on basic filtering rather than search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'listAsanaFavorites' or 'readAsanaTask', leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 like 'searchAsanaTasks' or 'listAsanaFavorites'. It mentions filtering parameters but doesn't explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied through parameter context only.

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