Formath MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action and return. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, how 'next open tasks' are determined (e.g., priority, creation time), error handling, or side effects beyond the state change.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying the operation, scope, and return value efficiently.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral context needed for safe invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It mentions 'limit' generally but doesn't explain the 'project_root' parameter at all or provide format/constraints for either parameter beyond what's in the schema (which has minimal 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 action ('Mark next open tasks as in_progress') and resource ('tasks'), with specific scope ('up to limit') and outcome ('Returns transitioned ids'). It distinguishes from siblings like tasks_list (list) and tasks_transition (general transition), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 needing to advance tasks to in_progress state with a limit, but doesn't specify when to use this vs. tasks_transition (which might handle arbitrary transitions) or tasks_autogen_from_entities. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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