float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the milestone_id doesn't exist. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation type.

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 gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'detailed information' includes to be perfectly 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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's purpose but lacks important context about authentication, error conditions, and what information is returned. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context for a complete understanding.

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 single parameter 'milestone_id' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('milestone'), specifying it provides 'detailed information about a specific milestone'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-milestones' (which lists multiple) and 'get-project-milestones' (which gets milestones by project). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what constitutes 'detailed information' or differentiate from other get operations like 'get-upcoming-milestones'.

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 when to choose 'get-milestone' over 'list-milestones', 'get-project-milestones', or other milestone-related tools. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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