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 text messages' implies a read-only operation but reveals nothing about permissions needed, rate limits, whether results are sorted, what format messages are returned in, or any side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

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 maximally concise - a single two-word phrase. While this represents severe under-specification, it's not wordy or poorly structured. Every word (both of them) directly relates to the tool's function, earning a perfect score on pure conciseness metrics.

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 'List text messages' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, what permissions are required, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on this description.

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 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info 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 messages' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other list operations (like listPeople or listCalls) or clarify what kind of text messages are being listed (sent, received, all?). This provides minimal value beyond the name itself.

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 context, prerequisites, or how this differs from similar tools like getTextMessage (which appears to fetch a single message). The agent receives zero usage direction.

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