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 'Get[s] detailed information', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, or data format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Get detailed information'), making it easy to parse. There is no wasted language, and it directly addresses what the tool does.

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?

The tool has a simple input schema with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output details. Given the low complexity and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete by addressing when to use it and what information is returned.

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, with the parameter 'logged_time_id' documented as 'The logged time ID (hexadecimal)'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples or constraints on the ID format. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific logged time entry', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-logged-time' by specifying retrieval of a single entry rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get-logged-time-timesheet' or 'get-person-logged-time-summary', which are related but not identical siblings.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'list-logged-time' for multiple entries or 'get-logged-time-timesheet' for timesheet-specific data, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid logged_time_id. Usage is implied by the parameter but not explicitly stated.

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