followupboss-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' information (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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?

Single sentence with zero waste—directly states purpose without fluff. Appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. 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 simple read tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral context. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally specify what identity information is returned (e.g., API key owner, permissions) to be more complete.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Get') and resource ('identity/account information'), specifying it's for the API key. It distinguishes from siblings like getCurrentUser or getUser by focusing on API key identity rather than user records. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling 'get' tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getCurrentUser or getUser. The description implies it's for API key identity but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools include similar identity-related functions without clear differentiation.

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