AroFlo MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, confirming safe read behavior. The description adds the GET method and valuable query syntax patterns (pipe-delimited WHERE clauses, JOIN areas), but omits behavioral details like pagination defaults, rate limits, or the effect of boolean flags (verbose/debug) that duplicate the mode parameter.

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 single dense paragraph front-loads the essential operation type (Query...GET) and efficiently packs query syntax examples, mode options, and documentation references. While information-rich, the sentence structure is clear and avoids redundancy with the structured schema, though bullet points might have improved scanability for 18 parameters.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately avoids return value documentation. It covers the unique query DSL patterns well and references external field documentation. However, for a tool with 18 parameters and complex pagination options, the omission of parameter descriptions for standard pagination and utility flags leaves significant gaps in the contract.

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 partially compensates by explaining syntax for complex parameters (where, order, join, mode, compact, select) with examples. However, it leaves 12 parameters undocumented, including pagination controls (page, pageSize, autoPaginate), validation flags (validateWhere), and the 'extra' objectPurpose, forcing agents to guess their semantics.

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 identifies the verb (Query/GET) and resource (AroFlo TaskTypes zone). However, it lacks domain context to distinguish 'TaskTypes' (likely classifications/templates) from sibling 'aroflo_get_tasks' (instances), which could confuse agents about which tool retrieves task categories versus actual tasks.

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 specific use (querying the TaskTypes zone) and references external documentation for valid fields, but fails to provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus the generic 'aroflo_query_zone' or when to prefer this over other filtering tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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