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' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per-page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 entries') followed by the key filtering capabilities. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it optimally concise for its purpose.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and main filtering dimensions but doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, response format, or error conditions. The 100% schema coverage helps, but for a list operation with multiple siblings, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions filtering by 'person, project, status, and date range' but incorrectly includes 'project' (not in schema) while omitting 'timeoff_type_id' and pagination parameters. This adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all time off entries with optional filtering'. It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('time off entries'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get-timeoff' or 'get-person-timeoff-summary', which appear to serve similar query purposes.

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. With siblings like 'get-timeoff', 'get-person-timeoff-summary', and 'get-timeoff-calendar', there's no indication of which tool to choose for different scenarios. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's the appropriate choice.

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