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 'List all custom fields' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'list'), pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it safely and effectively.

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, direct sentence with zero waste: 'List all custom fields'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on return format (e.g., list structure, field details), potential limitations (e.g., max items), or error cases. For a list operation, this leaves the agent guessing about what to expect from the output.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.

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 custom fields' clearly states the action (list) and resource (custom fields), but it's vague about scope and format. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCustomField' (singular retrieval) or 'createCustomField' (creation), leaving ambiguity about whether this returns summaries or full details.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used for browsing all custom fields versus using 'getCustomField' for a specific one, or mention prerequisites like authentication. The description alone offers no usage context.

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