float-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a list operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per-page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a 13-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 purpose ('List all milestones') followed by key filtering options. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted text, 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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how multiple filters interact. For a list operation with rich filtering options, more context is needed to help the agent use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing some filter types ('project, phase, status, or date range') but omits others like 'priority', 'created_by', and pagination parameters. This doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides, meeting 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 ('List') and resource ('milestones') with a specific scope ('all'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-milestone' (singular) or 'get-overdue-milestones', but the 'all' scope provides some implicit distinction. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.

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 mentions optional filtering parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-project-milestones' or 'get-upcoming-milestones'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the parameter list alone.

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