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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only ('read-only evidence') and mentions a limitation (cannot introspect automatically), which is helpful. However, it does not describe what happens to inputs, what the output looks like, or any potential errors or side effects. It provides some transparency but lacks depth.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and including a relevant limitation. Every word serves a function; there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this scope, though a bit more detail on parameters would have been useful.

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 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what response to expect, or how this fits into the broader audit workflow. An agent would struggle to know what arguments to pass or what results to expect, making it incomplete.

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 by explaining the parameters. It does not mention the 'systems' array or 'auditGoal' string at all. The names may be somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify their purpose, format, or required values. This is a significant gap.

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 states the tool's purpose: identifying available connected systems and the read-only evidence StackSwap needs. It specifies a verb ('identify'), a resource ('available connected systems'), and explicitly notes the server cannot introspect neighboring MCPs automatically, which differentiates it from siblings like scan_stack or request_system_connection. This is a clear, specific 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?

The description implies usage context by noting the server cannot introspect automatically, suggesting this tool is the manual way to obtain connection info. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools or exclusion conditions. It provides context but not explicit guidance.

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