ai-safety-guard

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

The description provides no behavioral details (e.g., whether it blocks actions, returns warnings, or modifies behavior). With no annotations, the agent has no insight into side effects or safety implications.

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 extremely short (single sentence) but fails to convey essential information. It is under-specified rather than concise; a well-structured description would prioritize key details.

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 three parameters with enums and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It doesn't clarify the tool's output, side effects, or how it integrates with other guard tools. The agent cannot determine correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains parameters (mcp_type, operation_type, sensitivity_level) with enums. The description adds no additional value beyond what's in the schema.

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 'AI Safety Guard - MCP Caution Instructions for AI Agents' is ambiguous. It does not explicitly state the tool's function (e.g., 'checks safety before calling an MCP' or 'provides safety guidelines'). The purpose is implied but not clearly conveyed.

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 guidance on when or why to use this tool versus siblings like 'prompt-injection-detector' or 'credential-scanner'. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation, forcing the agent to guess.

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