WCAG MCP Server

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 states it 'Gets' data (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format/structure of the returned context. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Gets comprehensive context for a success criterion') and specifies included content. There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (retrieving multiple data types), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive context' entails structurally, how techniques/rules/terms are returned, or any behavioral constraints. For a context-rich tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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, fully documenting the single parameter 'ref_id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format examples beyond 'e.g., "1.1.1"' or explain how 'comprehensive context' relates to the input). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('comprehensive context for a success criterion'), including what content it retrieves (techniques, test rules, glossary terms). It distinguishes from simpler sibling tools like 'get-criterion' by emphasizing comprehensiveness, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings like 'get-success-criteria-detail'.

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, when it's preferred over simpler tools like 'get-criterion' or more specialized ones like 'get-techniques-for-criterion', or any exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.

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