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 mentions the scope ('in ponds, not assigned') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters), whether results are sorted, what fields are returned, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational details.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes clarifying scope in parentheses. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more context about what 'unclaimed people' means operationally and what data is returned. The current description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks depth.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the limit and offset parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('unclaimed people'), and specifies the scope ('in ponds, not assigned'), which helps distinguish it from generic listPeople. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other filtering tools like searchPeopleByTag or listPeople with filters.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listPeople with filters or searchPeopleByTag. The description mentions 'in ponds, not assigned' which implies a specific context, but doesn't provide explicit usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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