AIM-Guard-MCP

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. It mentions analyzing for 'harmful content' but fails to specify what constitutes harm, the output format (e.g., scores, categories, flags), or any operational constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, concise phrase, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to front-load critical details like the tool's specific action, making it less helpful despite its brevity.

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's complexity (involving content analysis) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how harmful content is defined, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'text' clearly documented as 'Text to analyze for harmful content'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema adequately covers parameter information.

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 'AIM-Intelligence Text Guard Tool' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'aim-text-guard' with minimal elaboration. It vaguely suggests text analysis for 'harmful content' but lacks a specific verb-action pairing (e.g., 'detect', 'filter', 'classify') and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aim-security-prompt-tool' or 'ai-safety-guard'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit instructions, context for application, or mentions of sibling tools to help the agent choose appropriately between 'aim-text-guard', 'aim-security-prompt-tool', and 'ai-safety-guard'.

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