float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a safe operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a complete lack of behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise at just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of meaningful content - it's under-specified rather than appropriately sized. Every word earns its place, but there are too few words to be genuinely helpful.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'allocation' is, what happens after creation, potential side effects, or error conditions. The combination of no annotations and no output schema means the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and results, which it fails to do.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 8 parameters are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'Create a new allocation' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what an 'allocation' is in this context or what resources are involved. While the verb 'create' is clear, the object 'allocation' remains undefined, making the purpose vague compared to sibling tools like 'create-project' or 'create-person' which have self-explanatory objects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'update-allocation' or 'list-allocations'. The agent receives no contextual information about appropriate use cases.

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