w3c-mcp

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 states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details such as whether it returns a list or detailed objects, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get CSS property definitions') and includes key scope information ('from a specific spec or all specs'). There is no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the essential function without redundancy.

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 has 2 parameters with full schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and scope but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, which are important for a tool that might return complex data. It meets the baseline for a simple read tool but could be more informative.

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 already documents both parameters ('spec' and 'property') with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that omitting 'spec' returns all CSS properties, but it doesn't provide additional context like format examples or interaction between parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 'Get' and resource 'CSS property definitions', specifying the scope as 'from a specific spec or all specs'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_html_elements' or 'get_w3c_spec' by focusing on CSS properties rather than HTML elements or general specs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_css_specs' which might list specs rather than properties.

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 usage by mentioning 'from a specific spec or all specs', suggesting it can be used with or without the 'spec' parameter. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_w3c_specs' or 'list_css_specs', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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