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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all team holidays' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (though parameters exist), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. It mentions filtering options but doesn't explain how they interact or default behaviors.

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 team holidays') followed by the key filtering capabilities. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy or wasted phrasing.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the basic purpose and mentions filtering capabilities, but doesn't address pagination behavior, result format, or how to interpret the absence of filters. Given the complexity (9 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, more behavioral guidance would be helpful.

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%, meaning all 9 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering by department, date range, or active status' - it names three of the nine parameters but doesn't provide additional context about their usage or relationships. This meets 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 action ('List all team holidays') and resource ('team holidays'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list-team-holidays-by-date-range' or 'list-team-holidays-by-department', which appear to be more specialized versions of the same 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 through its mention of 'optional filtering by department, date range, or active status,' suggesting this is a general-purpose listing tool with filtering capabilities. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the more specialized sibling tools (e.g., 'list-team-holidays-by-date-range'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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