WAzion 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 disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states safety guarantees ('SEGURA — no envia mensajes ni modifica nada') and describes the execution pattern ('Para probar con multiples ejemplos, llamar esta accion varias veces'). Minor deduction for not describing what the simulation returns.

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 efficiently packs multiple guidance elements (purpose, trigger phrases, safety warning, usage pattern, and preference hierarchy) into a dense structure. Minor deduction for the trailing '[query]' artifact which appears to be template residue rather than intentional content.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral contract (safe simulation vs. real execution). It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could briefly mention that simulation results/logs are returned.

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?

While the input schema has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable usage context for test_message specifically ('Para probar con multiples ejemplos... diferentes test_message'), clarifying the iterative testing pattern that raw schema descriptions don't convey.

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 defines the tool's function using specific verbs ('Probar', 'Simula') and identifies the resource (workflow). It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing the 'dry run' nature ('sin enviar nada real') and contrasting it with save/update operations in the usage guidance.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases for when to invoke ('pruebalo', 'simulalo', 'testea', etc.) and explicitly states preference over alternatives ('PREFERIR esta accion sobre save/update cuando el usuario quiere validar antes de activar'). This gives the agent clear selection criteria against sibling workflow tools.

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