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. It states this is a retrieval operation ('Get'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'comprehensive details' specifically includes. The description is functional but lacks critical operational context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence efficiently covers what the tool does, and the second provides usage context. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence could be slightly more specific.

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 (retrieval with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output format. For a read operation with no structured output definition, more context on return values would be beneficial to achieve full completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (project_id and format). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project'), and lists the types of details returned (budget, timeline, client information, project settings). It distinguishes this from list operations by focusing on a specific project, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar get-* tools like get-project-report or get-project-milestones.

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 guidance by stating 'Use this to retrieve complete project information for planning and analysis,' which suggests when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like list-projects for overviews or other get-* tools for specific aspects, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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