AroFlo MCP

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

Annotations establish read-only/idempotent safety; the description adds valuable behavioral context including the pipe-delimited query DSL syntax ('and|field|=|value'), response shaping options (compact, select), debugging modes (verbose/debug/raw), and pagination hints. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Information-dense single sentence efficiently packs protocol method, query syntax examples, type flexibility, mode options, and documentation references without redundancy. Every clause serves the agent's understanding of how to construct valid inputs.

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 complex query DSL (18 parameters, nested logic) and existing output schema, the description appropriately focuses on explaining the non-obvious query construction patterns and points to external documentation for valid fields. Missing explanations for standard pagination parameters is acceptable given the schema types clarify their purpose.

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 carries significant burden. It successfully explains the complex custom syntax for 'where', 'order', 'join' (pipe-delimited strings or arrays), 'mode' enum values, and 'compact/select' usage. However, it omits semantic explanation for 12 other parameters (page, autoPaginate, validateWhere, etc.), though these are mostly self-descriptive.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Query the AroFlo Tasks zone (GET)'. This provides the exact verb (Query), resource (Tasks zone), and HTTP method, distinguishing it comprehensibly from sibling tools like aroflo_get_assets or the generic aroflo_query_zone.

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?

While it does not explicitly state 'when to use vs alternatives' (e.g., when to use this instead of aroflo_query_zone), it provides rich syntax guidance (pipe-delimited WHERE clauses, JOIN areas) that implies the intended usage pattern for filtering task data. However, explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are absent.

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