float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all phases' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether results are paginated (though schema hints at pagination), rate limits, or what the return format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 phases') followed by the key filtering capabilities. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's scope.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with 7 well-documented parameters but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context. However, it lacks important behavioral details like pagination behavior (implied but not explained), authentication requirements, and return format. The description is complete enough for basic usage but leaves gaps for more complex scenarios.

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 already fully documents all 7 parameters. The description mentions 'optional filtering by project, status, or date range' which maps to some parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. No additional syntax, format, or usage details are provided.

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 ('all phases') with optional filtering capabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get-phase' (singular retrieval) and 'list-phases-by-project' (project-specific listing) by offering broader filtering options. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get-active-phases' or 'get-phases-by-date-range' which have overlapping functionality.

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 implies usage context through 'optional filtering by project, status, or date range' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-phases-by-project' or 'get-phases-by-date-range'. No guidance is provided about when NOT to use this tool or about prerequisites such as authentication requirements.

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