mcp-wacli

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions checking three capability areas but doesn't disclose what the tool actually does behaviorally: whether it runs tests, returns status reports, performs repairs, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or produces actionable output. 'Run diagnostics' is vague about the actual behavior and results.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core function. Every word earns its place: 'Run' (action), 'wacli diagnostics' (target), and the three specific areas to check. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'run diagnostics' entails operationally, what format the results take, whether it's interactive or automated, or what happens after diagnostics complete. The agent lacks crucial information about how to interpret and use this tool's output.

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 with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. It focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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: 'Run wacli diagnostics' with specific areas to check (store, authentication, search capabilities). It uses a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the diagnostic target ('wacli'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'auth_status' or 'sync_once' that might overlap with some diagnostic functions.

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 prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With siblings like 'auth_status' that might check authentication specifically, there's no indication of when to choose the comprehensive diagnostic tool over more targeted ones.

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