SD Elements 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 behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Scan a repository' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, a potentially long-running process, whether it creates new data, what permissions are required, or what happens after scanning. For a tool that likely initiates a significant system action, this lack of behavioral context is critical.

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 maximally concise at just three words. While severely under-specified, it contains no wasted words or redundant information. Every word ('Scan', 'a', 'repository') contributes to the core message, making it structurally efficient despite its substantive deficiencies.

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 tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what scanning entails, what the expected outcome is, whether this is an asynchronous operation, or how results are accessed. The agent would be left guessing about fundamental aspects of tool behavior and usage.

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 description provides no parameter information whatsoever. However, with 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters (project_id, connection_id, repository_url) are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description adds zero value beyond what's already in structured data.

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 'Scan a repository' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'scan_repository' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't explain what 'scan' means in this context (security scan, code analysis, dependency check, etc.) or what resource is being scanned beyond the obvious. While it includes the verb and resource, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'list_scans' or 'get_scan_status'.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationships to sibling tools like 'list_scans' or 'get_scan_status'. The agent receives no help in determining when this scanning operation should be initiated versus checking existing scan results.

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