followupboss-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (though the schema shows pagination parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the results will be in. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation type.

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. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it's arguably too brief for effective tool selection, it achieves maximum efficiency in word count.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or provide any context about the listing operation. The agent would need to infer everything from the tool name and parameter schema alone.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (limit, offset, next) having clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 text message templates' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('text message templates'), but doesn't provide any additional context about scope, format, or what distinguishes this from other list operations. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listTemplates' or 'getTextMessageTemplate'.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it differs from related tools like 'getTextMessageTemplate' (singular) or 'listTemplates' (which might include other template types).

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