SD Elements 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. It discloses that the tool 'Get details' (implying a read-only operation) and mentions filtering behavior ('Filter by risk relevance'), but lacks details on error handling, response format, or permissions required. It adds some behavioral context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of 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 is efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose statement, usage examples, and explicit exclusion. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks details on response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a read operation with 3 parameters, it's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency that reduce completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by explaining the countermeasure_id format ('integer (e.g., 21) or string (e.g., "T21" or "31244-T21")') and the default behavior of risk_relevant ('Defaults to true'), but doesn't provide significant additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('a SPECIFIC countermeasure by its ID'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly naming an alternative (get_task_status_choices). It provides concrete examples of when to use it (e.g., 'countermeasure 123', 'T21').

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the user asks about a particular countermeasure') and when not to use it ('Do NOT use this tool when the user asks about available status choices or what statuses are valid'), providing a clear alternative ('use get_task_status_choices instead'). This gives comprehensive guidance on tool selection.

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