float-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks permissions but doesn't describe what happens during the check (e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output looks like). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that states the purpose and adds brief context without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 complexity of a permission-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., boolean result, detailed permission status), error conditions, or behavioral aspects like side effects. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (role_id, required_permissions, require_all). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check if a role has specific permissions' with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('role'), and it adds context about RBAC implementation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-role-permissions' or 'get-roles-by-permission', which appear to be related but have different functions.

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 provides minimal guidance with 'useful for RBAC implementation', which implies a context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-role-permissions' (which might retrieve permissions without checking) or 'get-roles-by-permission' (which might find roles with permissions). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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