webweaver-mcp-server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the tool only surfaces the form and the user completes it themselves, so the agent should not gather details first. That is real side-effect-relevant context. It stops short of stating whether the call is purely a read/render with no server mutation, or what is returned.

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, no filler. The what is front-loaded and the usage caveat follows immediately, with every clause earning 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema display tool, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and the key caveat about not pre-collecting details. The only minor gap is that it doesn't clarify what the caller receives back (e.g., rendered form markup), but with no output schema that is a small omission.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters because there is nothing to parameterize, and it reinforces that no data is supplied by the caller.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Displays the WebWeaver Nexus contact form') and immediately scopes its purpose (booking the Discovery & Audit or a service enquiry). Combined with the note that the user fills it in themselves, an agent can distinguish it from submit_contact_form and get_contact_info without opening 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call this when the user wants to make contact') plus a negative instruction ('do not collect their details in the conversation first'). It never names a sibling tool by name, so the routing is implied rather than fully spelled out, but the when/when-not guidance is unusually clear.

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. It implies a read-only operation via 'Returns,' which is adequate for a simple get tool with no parameters, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as output format or potential limitations.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. There is no unnecessary information or verbose phrasing.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description is brief and does not specify the structure of the returned contact methods and links. It gives a high-level summary that is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the exact response.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing schema information.

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 tool returns contact methods and links for WebWeaver Nexus, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_product_overview and join_waitlist.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning scenarios or exclusions, so an agent receives no practical usage context.

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 is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but it omits any additional context such as output format, length limits, or whether authentication is needed. For such a simple getter this is adequate, though not rich.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It front-loads the verb and object, making it immediately understandable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient to set expectations. It clearly indicates the return value is a short text description. It could potentially mention the product name for extra clarity, but overall it is complete for a straightforward getter.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description adds no parameter information but none is needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool where the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific verb ('returns') and a well-defined resource ('a short description of what WebWeaver Nexus does'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_contact_info and join_waitlist, which serve entirely different purposes.

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 gives a clear sense of when to use the tool (to get an overview of the product), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated, which is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-and-not-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful context that submission happens under the rendering app's identity, but says nothing about what the submission creates, error handling, or rate limits.

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, no filler, and the critical routing signal is front-loaded with "Internal." and the exclusion clause. 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?

For an 8-parameter write tool with five required fields, no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent unable to reason about inputs or outcomes. It correctly diverts the agent away, but if it is ever invoked the description provides no operational footing.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it supplies no information about any of them. Required fields like primaryGoal, consentPrivacy (a const true constraint) and renderedAt (likely an anti-bot timestamp) are left entirely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Submits the WebWeaver Nexus contact form") and scopes it to being invoked by the rendering app, which separates it from get_contact_form. The qualifier "on behalf of the app that renders it" is a little abstract, but an agent can still tell exactly what the tool does.

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?

Explicit when-not ("Not for direct use") paired with a named alternative and the action to take instead ("call get_contact_form and let the user complete the form"). This is the strongest possible routing guidance for a tool agents should avoid invoking themselves.

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