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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's a summary versus detailed report. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, as critical behavioral traits are omitted.

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 phrase with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'summary report' contains, how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for 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%, with all 5 parameters clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., start_date, end_date, project_id). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying filtering for a 'summary report', so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 'Get project summary report' clearly indicates a retrieval action ('Get') and the resource type ('project summary report'), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'summary report' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate-report' or 'get-project-logged-time-summary', leaving ambiguity about scope and content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'generate-report', 'get-billable-time-report', and 'get-project-logged-time-summary', the description fails to specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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