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 email templates' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what parameters suggest), error conditions, or what format the results will be in. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This represents optimal conciseness for a simple list operation.

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 list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information will be returned about each template, whether results are sorted, how pagination works beyond the parameter names, or any limitations on access. The combination of minimal description and missing structured metadata leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, offset, next) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, 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 email templates' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('email templates'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list operations (like listTextMessageTemplates or listTemplates for other resource types), and it doesn't specify scope or filtering capabilities beyond what the parameters imply.

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. While there are sibling tools like 'getTemplate' (for retrieving a single template) and 'createTemplate', the description doesn't mention these alternatives or provide context about when listing is preferable to getting individual items.

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