float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive reporting capabilities' and a 'decision-tree approach,' but fails to describe critical traits: whether operations are read-only or mutative (e.g., create/update/delete), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the 'decision-tree' entails. For a tool with 47 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 run-on sentence that packs multiple concepts (consolidated tool, entity types, functions, decision-tree, reporting). While it front-loads key information, it lacks structure and could be more concise by separating ideas. Some phrases like 'decision-tree approach' are vague and don't earn their place clearly. It's not overly verbose but could be tighter and better organized.

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 high complexity (47 parameters, multiple entity types and operations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (mutations, auth, errors), output formats, or how to map parameters to operations. The mention of 'reporting capabilities' is vague without detailing report types or formats. For such a multifaceted tool, the description leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 47 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the high-level mention of entities and operations. It doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., which parameters apply to which entity_type/operation combinations) or provide usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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: managing time tracking entities (logged-time, timeoff, timeoff-types, public-holidays, team-holidays) with specific functions like time logging, leave management, and holiday tracking. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a 'consolidated tool' with a 'decision-tree approach,' though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb+resource combination is specific, but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., create-logged-time, get-timeoff, list-team-holidays). It mentions a 'decision-tree approach' but doesn't explain what that entails or when to choose this consolidated tool over individual ones. There are no usage prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives, leaving the agent with little operational guidance.

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