WAzion MCP Server

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 adds valuable context about the source (automatic error detection system) and content type (workflow/prompt changes), but does not clarify safety traits like idempotency, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 uses an efficient em-dash structure to separate the title clause from the explanation. However, it includes a trailing '[query]' fragment that appears to be a template artifact or placeholder, which wastes space and creates confusion without adding value. Otherwise, the sentence structure is tight and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains what the suggestions are and their pending state. However, given the existence of specific sibling tools for acting on these suggestions, the description would be more complete if it explicitly mentioned the apply/dismiss workflow or referenced those tools as follow-up actions.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the `status` parameter (including allowed values and default), the baseline score is 3. The description does not explicitly reference the parameter or add semantic context beyond what the schema provides, but this is acceptable given the complete 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 clearly identifies the resource (AI training suggestions), their source (automatic error detection system), and their nature (proposed changes to workflows or shop prompts). It distinguishes from action-oriented siblings like `apply_training_suggestion` and `dismiss_training_suggestion` by emphasizing these are 'pending' and 'need owner review', implying this is a retrieval tool before action is taken.

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?

While the description implies a workflow by stating suggestions 'need owner review', it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that `apply_training_suggestion` or `dismiss_training_suggestion` should be used after review to act upon these items, nor does it specify prerequisites for calling this tool.

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