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 overdue milestones but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described). For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This exemplifies optimal conciseness for a simple tool description.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and usage context. While it clearly states the purpose, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool effectively or interpret results, especially without annotations or output schema.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how filters interact or default behaviors). Given the high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 milestones that are overdue (past their due date and not completed)'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('milestones'), and criteria ('overdue'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-milestone', 'get-upcoming-milestones', or 'list-milestones', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 such as 'get-upcoming-milestones' or 'list-milestones', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts for usage. This lack of comparative or contextual advice limits its effectiveness in tool selection.

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