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 the tool 'Get[s] all milestones' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per-page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's read-only (though 'Get' implies safe retrieval). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 ('Get all milestones for a specific project') and adds a concise qualifier ('with optional filtering'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and clear.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, error handling), output format, or how filtering interacts with the 'Get all' scope. For a retrieval tool with multiple filters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering', which aligns with parameters like 'status' and 'completed', but does not provide additional semantics or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('milestones for a specific project'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-milestone' (singular) or 'list-milestones', which might retrieve milestones differently (e.g., across all projects).

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 mentions 'optional filtering' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-milestones' or 'get-upcoming-milestones'. There is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions stated, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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