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 clarify whether this requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, includes inherited permissions, or handles errors (e.g., invalid role_id). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'permissions' entail (e.g., granular access controls), the return format, or potential side effects. For a tool that likely returns structured permission data, more context is needed to help the agent understand and use the output effectively.

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, with the single parameter 'role_id' documented as 'The role ID (role_id)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, valid sources for role_id, or relationship to other tools). 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all permissions for a specific role'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-role' (which retrieves role details) and 'update-role-permissions' (which modifies permissions), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The verb 'Get' is specific enough for a read operation.

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 role_id), compare to similar tools like 'check-role-access' or 'get-roles-by-permission', or specify use cases (e.g., auditing permissions before updates). Without any contextual cues, the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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