Memory Bank MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is '添加' (add), implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether tasks are editable after creation, how they integrate with projects, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after task creation, how tasks relate to projects (via projectId), or potential error conditions. Given the complexity of adding tasks with deadlines and priorities, more context is needed for effective use.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying it adds tasks, which is already evident from the name and schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 '添加新任务到任务列表' (Add new task to task list) clearly states the action (add) and resource (task list) in specific terms. It distinguishes from siblings like 'plan_get_tasks' (read) and 'plan_update_tasks' (update), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_project' or 'creative_add_idea' beyond the 'task' focus.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it's for adding tasks to a plan, there's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to other task management tools like 'plan_update_tasks' or 'implement_update_progress'.

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