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. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (no rate limits, auth needs, or specific constraints). However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 and immediately lists all optional parameters. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (4 optional parameters), rich annotations covering safety, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies all parameters and their optional nature, though it could better explain parameter semantics and usage context relative to siblings.

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 compensates by listing all four parameters (status, freshness, spelling, limit) and their optional nature. However, it doesn't explain what 'freshness' or 'status' mean semantically (e.g., 'new' vs 'review', 'finished' vs 'unfinished'), leaving gaps that the schema's enums don't fully clarify.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'today's Maimemo study words', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'maimemo_get_today_progress' by focusing on words rather than progress metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'maimemo_get_due_words' which might also list words.

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 'maimemo_find_vocabulary' or 'maimemo_get_due_words'. It mentions optional filters but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what distinguishes this listing from other word-related tools.

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