mcp2ws

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 only states it's a SOAP method, which implies a network call but doesn't reveal critical traits like whether it's read-only, its response format, error handling, or performance considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform an AI agent about its 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?

The description is concise with a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to front-load key details about the tool's purpose or behavior, making it less helpful for quick understanding. It earns a middle score for brevity but lacks effective structure.

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 (a list operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of language codes or full details), how results are formatted, or any usage constraints. This gap makes it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's context.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline score of 4 is justified as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary parameter 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 'SOAP method: ListOfLanguagesByCode' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name with minimal added context. While it hints at listing languages by code, it lacks specificity about what resources are returned (e.g., language names, codes, or full details) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'LanguageISOCode' or 'ListOfLanguagesByName'. This leaves the purpose vague for an AI agent.

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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate it from related tools such as 'ListOfLanguagesByName' or 'LanguageISOCode'. This absence of usage instructions makes it difficult for an AI agent to select the appropriate tool.

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