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 retrieves data ('Get'), implying it's a read operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves and what to expect.

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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get logged time' (action), 'in timesheet format' (output type), 'for a specific date range' (scope), 'organized by person and date' (structure). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks behavioral details, usage guidelines, and output expectations. The high schema coverage helps, but without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks critical context for effective tool invocation.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'date range' (implied by start_date and end_date) and 'organized by person and date' (hinting at people_id filtering and output structure). It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 logged time in timesheet format for a specific date range, organized by person and date'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('logged time'), and format ('timesheet format'), with date range and organization details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-logged-time' or 'get-time-report', which appear to be similar retrieval tools in the same domain.

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 sibling tools like 'get-logged-time', 'get-time-report', or 'get-billable-time-report', nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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