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 describes a read operation ('returns'), but does not specify permissions, error handling, rate limits, or output format. The mention of 'report file' hints at a file-based resource, but lacks details on access or constraints.

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, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though it could benefit from additional context to improve completeness.

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 an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and low parameter coverage, it lacks details on behavior, usage, and parameter meaning. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a read operation with two required parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'model_name' and 'section' implicitly but does not explain their semantics, valid values, or examples. This leaves key details like what constitutes a valid section or model name unclear.

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 the contents of a section of the report file for a given model', which specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('contents of a section of the report file'), and scope ('for a given model'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_report_sections' or 'get_model_info', leaving ambiguity about their specific differences.

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 does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings such as 'get_report_sections' or 'get_input_sections', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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