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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes error handling, or provides details on output format (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Get predecessor and successor dependencies for project tasks') to improve clarity while maintaining brevity.

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 complexity (fetching relational data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'dependency information' includes (e.g., task IDs, dependency types), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., only works for active projects). For a tool with no structured behavioral or output details, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (project_id and project_task_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how these IDs are obtained or their expected formats. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 dependency information for project tasks' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('dependency information for project tasks'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'dependency information' entails (e.g., predecessors, successors, types) and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get-project-task' or 'get-project-tasks-by-project' that might also provide task-related data.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get-project-task' or 'list-project-tasks', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and parameters alone.

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