float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets detailed information' without specifying what that information includes, whether it's a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.

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. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, what format it returns, or any behavioral constraints. Given the context of sibling tools that handle similar data, more completeness 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what fields are available or provide 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 ('detailed information about a specific project task'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-project-tasks' or 'get-project-tasks-by-project', which would be needed for 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 'list-project-tasks' or 'get-project-tasks-by-project'. It mentions 'specific project task' which implies you need an ID, but doesn't explain when this is the right choice versus listing tasks.

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