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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, or how errors are handled. It mentions the response includes 'comprehensive details' but doesn't specify format or structure beyond the input schema's 'format' parameter. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage context. The first sentence clearly states what the tool does, and the second provides practical application. There's no wasted language, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what the tool does and why it's useful, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, error handling, or response structure. The description compensates somewhat by listing the types of details returned, but more context would be helpful for a read operation.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('people_id' and 'format') thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'people_id' represents or providing examples. However, it does imply that the tool returns detailed person information, which aligns with the 'people_id' parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Get comprehensive details about a specific team member' with specific attributes listed (role, department, skills, contact information, employment details). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list-people' by focusing on a single person's details rather than listing multiple people. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the 'people_id' parameter as the identifier, which would make it a perfect 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 implied usage context: 'Essential for team management and resource allocation' suggests when this tool might be useful. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-account' or 'list-people,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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