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. It mentions 'Get all active phases' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'active' means (e.g., based on status). The description is minimal and misses key operational details for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get all active phases') and adds a brief qualifier ('optionally filtered by project'). Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (a read operation with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'active' means, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or any error conditions. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (project_id and status). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optionally filtered by project', which aligns with the project_id parameter but doesn't provide additional context beyond the schema. No extra syntax or format details are given, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('active phases'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-phases' or 'get-phase' by specifying 'active' phases, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list-phases-by-project' which might overlap. The description is specific but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.

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 usage by mentioning optional filtering by project, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-phases' or 'list-phases-by-project'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The context is somewhat implied but lacks clear alternatives or when-not scenarios.

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