maimemo-mcp

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the agent knows it's a safe, repeatable query operation. The description adds some behavioral context by specifying what can be queried (next study date, spelling list, etc.) and mentioning 'count-only mode', which suggests different output formats. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior, error conditions, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently lists all filtering capabilities. Every word earns its place by specifying queryable dimensions. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse while conveying essential information.

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 comprehensive annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world) and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description provides adequate context for a query tool. It identifies all parameters and the core functionality. However, it could better explain how this differs from sibling query tools and provide more parameter semantics to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It mentions all five parameters (next study date, spelling list, limit, count-only mode) by name, giving basic semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., that startDate/endDate define a date range), formats (e.g., date string format), or constraints (e.g., spelling list size limits). The schema provides structural details but no descriptions.

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 as querying Maimemo study records with specific filtering criteria (next study date, spelling list, limit, count-only mode). It uses the specific verb 'query' and identifies the resource as 'Maimemo study records'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'maimemo_get_today_progress' or 'maimemo_list_today_words', which also appear to retrieve study data.

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 lists filtering parameters but doesn't explain scenarios where this query tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'maimemo_find_vocabulary' or 'maimemo_get_today_progress'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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