followupboss-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all action plans' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what the schema implies), or what format the results will be in. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary verbiage. Every word earns its place in communicating the basic function.

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 listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what an 'action plan' is in this context, what fields are returned, or how results are structured. The agent would need to guess about the response format and content.

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 both 'limit' and 'offset' parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 'List all action plans' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('action plans'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope or filtering capabilities, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listActionPlansPeople' which suggests a related but different operation.

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 sibling tools like 'listActionPlansPeople' and 'listPeople' available, there's no indication of when this specific listing is appropriate versus other listing operations.

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