WAzion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet only states the tool 'shows all' assistants without addressing pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes the return payload. The scope is defined as comprehensive ('todos'), but operational characteristics and side effects remain completely undocumented.

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?

While the em-dash structure efficiently separates the action title from the descriptive clause, the trailing '[query]' token appears to be an erroneous placeholder or copy-paste artifact that serves no communicative purpose. This residue significantly detracts from the description's professional clarity and structural integrity.

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 simple parameterless list operation, the description adequately identifies the target resource (Doc Q&A assistants) and distinguishes it from sibling tools. However, given the absence of an output schema, the failure to describe the return format, field structure, or pagination behavior leaves a meaningful gap in the agent's ability to predict the tool's output.

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 contains zero parameters (100% description coverage of an empty object), establishing the baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. The description correctly implies no filtering parameters exist by stating it displays 'all' assistants, aligning with the empty schema structure.

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 opening phrase 'Listar asistentes Doc Q&A' closely mirrors the tool name, functioning as a translation rather than adding distinct semantic value. While the second clause 'Muestra todos los asistentes...' clarifies scope by specifying these are documentation assistants from the Doc Q&A plugin (distinguishing from generic agents), the trailing '[query]' artifact creates confusion and suggests incomplete editing.

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 explicit guidance is provided regarding when to select this tool versus siblings like `get_docqa_detail` (which retrieves specific assistant details) or `create_docqa_assistant`. The description lacks information about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this listing would be necessary versus other Doc Q&A operations.

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