float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s]' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns aggregated data (e.g., totals vs. detailed breakdowns), or handles errors. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does ('Get logged time summary for a specific person') and includes key details ('including billable/non-billable hours') concisely. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., summary format, data types), error handling, authentication needs, and how it differs from sibling tools like 'get-logged-time'. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more to guide the agent effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'people_id' as person ID, 'start_date' in YYYY-MM-DD format). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'billable/non-billable hours', which aligns with the 'billable' parameter but doesn't provide additional context like default behaviors or interaction effects. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 'logged time summary for a specific person', including the specific breakdown of 'billable/non-billable hours'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get-person-timeoff-summary' by focusing on logged time rather than time off, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other time-related tools like 'get-logged-time' or 'get-billable-time-report'.

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 prerequisites like authentication, compare it to similar tools (e.g., 'get-logged-time' for detailed entries vs. this summary), or specify use cases like reporting or analysis. The absence of usage context leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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