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 but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated (though parameters suggest it), or what format the output takes. 'List' implies a read operation but lacks confirmation of safety or behavioral details.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation. 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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, output format, error conditions, or usage context. While concise, it leaves too many gaps for the agent to understand how to effectively use this tool.

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 four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how filters combine (AND/OR), default behaviors, or parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and resource ('people assigned to action plans'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listPeople' or 'listActionPlans' - it's a specific subset but the distinction isn't explicitly articulated.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listPeople' or 'getPerson'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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