float-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'gets' a report, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or output format. For a reporting tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place - 'detailed report', 'billable vs non-billable', 'logged time', 'breakdown by person and project' all contribute meaning without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 reporting tool with 4 parameters (2 required), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't address behavioral aspects (permissions, rate limits) or differentiate from similar reporting tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'breakdown by person and project' which aligns with the optional 'people_id' and 'project_id' parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about how these filters work. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get a detailed report of billable vs non-billable logged time with breakdown by person and project'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('report'), and key dimensions (billable/non-billable, person, project). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-time-report' or 'generate-report', which could be similar reporting tools.

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. With sibling tools like 'get-time-report', 'generate-report', and 'get-people-utilization-report', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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