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'), which is helpful, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the 'detailed information' returns. For a tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'detailed information' includes to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' returns, authentication needs, error handling, or how this differs from other phase-related get tools. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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 has 100% description coverage with the parameter 'phase_id' clearly documented as 'The phase ID (phase_id)'. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining what a phase ID represents or where to find it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Get detailed information about a specific phase' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('phase'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'detailed information' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-phases' (which lists multiple phases) but doesn't specify what details are included compared to other get tools like 'get-phase-schedule'.

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 this over 'get-active-phases', 'get-phases-by-date-range', or 'list-phases', nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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