wb_degradations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool reports (steadily failing tools) and implies a read-only diagnostic operation, but it does not explicitly state that it performs no mutations, what the response contains, or whether any authentication or rate-limit considerations apply. For a zero-parameter status tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first phrase. The additional 'No parameters' is somewhat redundant with the schema, and the parenthetical Russian word '(деградации)' adds little value, but the overall description is efficient and focused.

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 low complexity, zero parameters, and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does. It could be improved by describing the expected response format or fields, but the absence of parameters and the clear purpose make it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 zero parameters, and the schema already reflects this with an empty properties object. The description reinforces this with 'No parameters', and since there are no parameters needing semantic explanation, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's resource and purpose: it reports MCP tools that used to work and now fail steadily, indicating a WB API change. It lacks a specific imperative verb like 'list' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling diagnostic tools such as wb_diagnostics, so it stops short of a 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the purpose and that it has no parameters, but does not state exclusions, alternative tools, or recommended invocation scenarios. An agent would have to infer when checking degradations is appropriate.

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