audit_tool_descriptions

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

Despite no annotations, the description states it is read-only, stateless, idempotent, and mentions rate limits (10/day free, unlimited pro) and that no authentication is required for basic usage. This covers key behavioral traits, though it could specify error handling or what happens on rate limit exceed.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (main description, behavior, when to use/not, args). Most sentences add value, though the 'Args' section essentially repeats parameter names and types without additional insight, slightly bloating length.

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, description provides context about when to use (behind auth, not deployed), behavioral traits, and parameter formats. Lacks details on exact security checks performed or output structure, but covers sufficient ground for selection.

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 description must compensate. It explains tools_json accepts multiple formats (raw list, object with tools, etc.) and briefly mentions api_key's purpose. However, the api_key description is vague ('to analyze or process') and doesn't clarify usage, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool audits a JSON string containing a tool list for security assessment. It distinguishes from sibling scan_mcp_url by noting it uses the same rule catalogue but is useful when the server is behind auth or not yet deployed. The verb 'audit' and specific resource 'tool list' make purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide clear guidance. It advises use for security assessment, threat detection, and automated scanning, while cautioning against sole reliance for production decisions and recommending manual review. Also suggests alternative scan_mcp_url for URL-based scanning.

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