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 lists entries with filtering, but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 ('List all logged time entries') and then lists key filtering options. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or error handling. For a list tool with rich filtering options, more context is needed to help the agent use it effectively, especially without annotations or output schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds value by summarizing the filtering options (person, project, date range, billable status), but this doesn't go beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It misses some parameters like 'locked', 'task_id', 'fields', and pagination details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 verb ('List') and resource ('logged time entries'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also mentions optional filtering capabilities, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-logged-time' or 'get-logged-time-timesheet', which appear to serve similar purposes, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 'get-logged-time' or 'get-logged-time-timesheet'. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, 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.