maimemo-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it returns 'full content and parsed word list', which clarifies the output behavior beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and the added detail enhances transparency about what data is retrieved.

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 action and key details ('full content and parsed word list'). There is no wasted text, and every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding 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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, read-only operation), annotations cover safety and behavior, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is complete enough. It provides the necessary purpose and output context without redundancy, aligning well with the structured data provided.

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 1 parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description compensates by explaining that the tool gets a notepad 'by id', adding meaning to the parameter. However, it does not specify format or constraints for the 'id' (e.g., numeric, UUID), leaving some ambiguity.

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'), resource ('Maimemo cloud notepad'), and specific scope ('by id with full content and parsed word list'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'maimemo_list_notepads' (which lists notepads) and 'maimemo_get_due_words' (which focuses on words), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 when a specific notepad ID is known, as it retrieves by 'id'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'maimemo_list_notepads' for browsing or other tools for different data types. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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