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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves specifications but does not describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list, object). For a tool 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 directly states the tool's purpose with relevant examples. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter's role, but this is minor.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It adequately covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, return format) and usage guidelines. For a tool in a server with many specification-related siblings, more completeness is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing a clear definition for 'coreOnly'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it does not mention parameters or their effects. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameter without additional description input.

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's purpose: 'Get all Progressive Web App (PWA) related specifications' with specific examples (Service Worker, Web App Manifest, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PWA related specifications'), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_w3c_spec' or 'list_w3c_specs', which might also retrieve specifications. This makes it clear but not fully differentiated from siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_w3c_spec' or 'list_w3c_specs' that might be related. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions, relying solely on the tool name and description for inference.

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