audit_server_json

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload shape ({pass, score_0_100, errors, warnings, recommendations, spec_version}), which compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether the audit is purely read-only.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose and then uses compact Args/Returns blocks with no filler. Efficient, though the Args section largely restates the two parameters already visible in the schema.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both inputs and enumerates the full return structure. It stops short of clarifying how the 'full' audit relates to the sibling partial checks.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains server_json as the contents of a server.json file and spec_version as the target spec revision with a default. The only gap is a minor drift where the description says the default is 'latest' while the schema pins '2025-12-11'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full conformity audit of an MCP server.json'), and the word 'Full' implicitly distinguishes it from the piecemeal sibling checks like check_required_fields and check_naming_conventions. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing between this and the four sibling check tools. An agent must infer that a 'full' audit supersedes the granular checks.

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