float-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'scheduling information' entails (e.g., format, pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from details). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'scheduling information' includes (e.g., dependencies, timeline details), how results are formatted, or any limitations. For a tool that likely returns complex data, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.

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 ('project_id' and 'include_tasks'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'include_tasks' affects the output or clarifying parameter interactions. 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('scheduling information for phases'), specifying what information is retrieved. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-phase' or 'get-phases-by-date-range' by focusing on schedule aspects like dependencies and timeline. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 like 'get-phase', 'list-phases-by-project', or 'get-project-tasks-by-phase'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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