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. The description only states the action ('list') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 phrase 'List deal custom fields', which is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential context that would help the agent, such as the scope or format of the listing. It's front-loaded by default due to its brevity, but doesn't earn its place with valuable information.

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 complexity (a list operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of custom field objects, their properties, or pagination details), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to be 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, meaning the input schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly imply any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss nonexistent parameters.

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 deal custom fields' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'listDealCustomFields'. It provides no additional specificity about what the tool actually does, such as whether it returns all custom fields, filtered results, or paginated data. While the verb 'list' and resource 'deal custom fields' are clear, the description fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'listCustomFields' or 'getDealCustomField'.

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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'listCustomFields' (which might list all custom fields across types) or 'getDealCustomField' (which might retrieve a specific custom field), nor does it specify any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This lack of guidance leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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