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. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'default status information' entails. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could affect agent decision-making.

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 action ('Get all statuses for a specific type') and adds a clarifying detail ('with default status information'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly. A slight deduction to 4 is due to the vague term 'default status information,' which could be more precise.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output specifics. With no annotations to fill gaps, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum for a read operation without critical omissions.

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, clearly documenting both parameters ('status_type' with enum values and 'active' with numeric mapping). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only implies filtering by type and mentions 'default status information' without explaining how parameters relate to that. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all statuses for a specific type with default status information.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('statuses'), and scope ('for a specific type'), which is clear and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-status' or 'list-statuses,' which slightly reduces its effectiveness in isolation.

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 sibling tools like 'get-status' (which might fetch a single status) or 'list-statuses' (which might list all statuses without filtering by type), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone. This lack of explicit context reduces its utility in a multi-tool environment.

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