AroFlo MCP

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

Adds significant context beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations: discloses filtering logic (closeddate empty), internal join pattern (project + tasktotals), and output characteristics (compact grouped). No contradictions with safety 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?

Two dense sentences, zero waste. First sentence defines scope and data returned; second explains implementation approach and output format. Front-loaded with essential filtering criteria.

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?

Adequate for tool selection given output schema exists (no need to describe returns). However, with 14 undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide sufficient invocation guidance for a complex reporting tool.

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?

Critical failure: with 14 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description mentions zero parameters. Does not explain date filters (sinceCreatedUtc, sinceTaskCreatedUtc), orgId, managerUserId, or mode options despite their complexity.

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?

Excellent specificity: states exact filter criteria (status=open, closeddate empty), resource (open projects), sub-resource (tasks), and aggregation (total labour hours). Distinguishes clearly from sibling 'list' tools by emphasizing the joined/grouped output.

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?

Provides implied guidance by describing internal behavior (fetches Projects then Tasks), hinting this is a convenience aggregation over separate calls. However, lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives like 'aroflo_list_open_projects' for simpler use cases.

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