SWMM-MCP

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 states the tool returns a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the list is in (e.g., structured data or raw text). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and schema coverage.

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 complexity of a tool with one parameter, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or output format, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional information.

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 description mentions 'for a given model', which corresponds to the 'model_name' parameter in the schema, but with 0% schema description coverage, it adds minimal semantic value. It doesn't explain what 'model_name' entails (e.g., format, valid values, or examples), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool 'Returns a list of sections in the input file for a given model', which provides a clear verb ('Returns') and resource ('sections in the input file'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'sections' specifically means. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_input_info' or 'get_report_sections', leaving ambiguity about its unique purpose.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_input_info' and 'get_report_sections' available, the description lacks any context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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