maimemo-mcp

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

Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe, non-destructive, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as it only states what data is returned without detailing format, potential errors, or rate limits. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral insights.

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, clear sentence: 'Return today's Maimemo study progress and study time.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly informing 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 (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what data is returned, which complements the output schema. However, it could be more complete by including usage guidelines or distinguishing from siblings, but for a basic read operation, it provides enough context to understand the tool's role.

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 no parameters (parameter count: 0), and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to explain. It efficiently focuses on the output ('today's Maimemo study progress and study time'), which is appropriate given the context.

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: 'Return today's Maimemo study progress and study time.' It specifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('today's Maimemo study progress and study time'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., maimemo_get_due_words, maimemo_list_today_words), which also retrieve study-related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like maimemo_get_due_words or maimemo_list_today_words, which might offer overlapping or complementary functionality. This lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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