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. It mentions optional filtering but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't disclose that the tool supports pagination (implied by parameters but not stated), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of status objects). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 statuses') and adds essential context ('with optional filtering'). There is zero waste or redundancy, 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 tool's complexity (read operation with 4 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering but lacks details on behavior, return values, and usage context. Without annotations, it should do more to compensate, but it meets a bare minimum for a list tool.

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 documents all parameters (status_type, active, page, per-page) with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filtering by status type', which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('all statuses'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get-status' (singular) and 'get-statuses-by-type' (similar but not identical). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-statuses-by-type' which appears to serve a similar filtering purpose.

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 through 'optional filtering by status type (project or task)', suggesting when filtering might be appropriate. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-statuses-by-type' or 'get-status', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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