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. It only states it's a SOAP method, which hints at a web service call, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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: 'SOAP method: ListOfLanguagesByName'. It's front-loaded with the key information (SOAP method and name), with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence serves a purpose in identifying the tool.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of language names or details), which is critical for a listing tool. With no annotations and missing output details, it fails to provide enough context for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids misalignment with the empty schema.

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 it's a SOAP method called 'ListOfLanguagesByName', which implies it lists languages by name. However, it's vague about what exactly it returns (e.g., language names, codes, or full details) and doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'ListOfLanguagesByCode' or 'LanguageName'. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'LanguagesByName', but lacks detail on scope or output.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as comparing it to 'ListOfLanguagesByCode' or 'LanguageName' from the sibling list. The description is purely technical without practical usage advice.

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