Toolweather

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the verdict categories (safe/caution/unsafe) and the returned signals (live status, latency, last tool change and whether it was breaking, spec readiness, auth info). It does not disclose rate limits, caching/freshness of the check, or the cost/latency of the check itself, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action and scope, followed by a compact return-value list that earns its place given there is no output schema. Slightly dense toward the end but free of filler.

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 2-parameter read-only check with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies both input semantics and expected return content, which is most of what an agent needs. Remaining gaps are secondary operational traits such as freshness, caching, and any auth required to run the check.

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 0%, so the bare string parameters carry no meaning on their own. The description compensates by explaining that 'server' accepts a registry name or URL and that 'tool' is optional and scopes the check to a single tool, matching the required list.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check ... is safe to call') plus the resource (an MCP server, or one of its tools) and the temporal scope ('right now'). The purpose is orthogonal to the sibling watch_* tools, so an agent can route to it without inspecting any schema.

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 implies a pre-flight check ('is safe to call right now') and clarifies that the tool argument is optional, which hints at two modes of use. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling watch_server/unwatch_server tools, nor any prerequisites or when not to call it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the result set is scoped to 'this API key' rather than global, and it includes 'delivery health' data. It omits return ordering, pagination/limits, and whether inactive watches are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter listing tool. It is arguably terse enough that the scoping and health details are densely packed rather than elaborated.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description has little to cover, and it does state both what is listed and what each entry contains. The remaining gap is the exact shape/fields of the returned watch and health data, which is only loosely characterized.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level information is missing because none exists.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List ... watches') and even adds what the listing contains ('their delivery health'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools (watch_server, unwatch_server) or explain why one would list rather than create/remove a watch.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to inspect existing watches, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of the sibling tools as alternatives. Nothing is misleading, but nothing is spelled out either.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes 'working' servers, suggesting an availability filter, but omits auth needs, rate limits, read-only nature, and return behavior.

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?

Two sentences with a front-loaded purpose and zero filler. The query syntax note is compact and useful.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete: it omits limit semantics, usage context, and behavioral traits. It provides only enough to invoke the required query parameter.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description defines query as a server name/URL or capability text with an example, adding meaningful semantics. However, the optional limit parameter is entirely undocumented in both the description and schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('working MCP servers with similar tools'), making the action clear. It does not differentiate from siblings such as is_safe_to_call or watch_server, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. It only implies that the tool is for finding alternatives, with no exclusions or routing guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Delete" implies a mutation, but nothing is said about reversibility, idempotency, behavior when the id is unknown, or permission requirements — significant gaps for a destructive 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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is terse rather than padded, though brevity here comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin: it says nothing about side effects, failure modes, or return behavior. An agent cannot predict the outcome of an invalid or already-deleted id.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. "by id" does identify what the parameter is (the watch identifier), which is minimal but non-trivial added meaning over a bare `{"id": {"type": "string"}}`.

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?

States a specific verb ("Delete") and resource ("watch") with the lookup key ("by id"), so the agent knows exactly what it removes. It doesn't explicitly name the counterpart `watch_server` or otherwise differentiate itself from siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 at all on when to use this versus alternatives such as `watch_server` or `list_watches`, nor any prerequisite (e.g. the id must come from a prior watch/list call). The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return payload (a per-watch secret), the signature header used for verification (X-Toolweather-Signature), and a quota limit (3 watches per key on free tier). It omits what happens on re-watching an already-watched server or how failure/auth errors surface.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the trigger conditions front-loaded before the return-value and quota details. Every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the returned secret and header verification. For a two-required-param mutation with no annotations it is nearly complete, missing only lifecycle details such as duplicate watches or how to stop one.

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 both parameters (server, webhook_url) are already documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action (register a webhook watch) on a specific resource (a server), and enumerates the exact trigger conditions: verdict change, auth requirement, breaking tool-list change. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling unwatch_server and list_watches.

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 trigger conditions give clear context for when a watch is relevant, and the free-tier quota hints at a practical constraint. However, it never names an alternative or states a when-not condition (e.g., use list_watches to audit existing watches first).

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