followupboss-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get reactions' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the item doesn't exist. The description is too minimal to adequately inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reactions' entail (e.g., types, counts, or user data) or the return format. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output information, the description should provide more context to be fully 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Item ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain the format or source of the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 'Get reactions for an item' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('reactions'), but it's vague about what 'item' refers to (e.g., a post, comment, or message) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'createReaction' or 'deleteReaction'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an item ID), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'getThreadedReplies' or 'list' tools for reactions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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