w3c-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond the input schema by specifying that dependency data is not available and returns empty arrays, which is crucial for understanding the tool's limitations. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or other behavioral traits, preventing a perfect score.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context about limitations. There is no wasted text, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 complexity (simple read operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a key limitation (dependency data unavailability), but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to use it 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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'shortname' clearly documented as 'Specification shortname.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context about this parameter beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 basic information for a specification.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specification'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_w3c_spec' or 'search_w3c_specs', which likely serve similar purposes. This omission prevents a score of 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?

The description provides implied usage guidance by noting that dependency data is unavailable and returns empty arrays, suggesting this tool is for basic info only. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_w3c_spec' or 'search_w3c_specs'), nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves gaps in clear usage instructions.

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