float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a list operation with optional filtering. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination behavior (though parameters exist), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with large datasets. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 time off types') and adds necessary qualification ('with optional filtering by active status'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.

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 list tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and filtering but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, and output format. Given the complexity is low (simple list operation), it's complete enough to be functional but not 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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (active, page, per-page). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filtering by active status' but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already specifies. 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 verb ('List') and resource ('time off types') with scope ('all'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-time-off-type' (singular retrieval) or 'create-time-off-type' (creation), missing full sibling differentiation that would warrant a 5.

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-time-off-type' for single items or 'create-time-off-type' for creation. It mentions optional filtering by active status but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate, leaving the agent with no contextual usage instructions.

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