check_listing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the analysis runs without starting the server, so it is a side-effect-free, offline read. It says nothing about what the analysis produces, how detectors are selected, or any limits on listing size or processing time.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action and the key constraint front-loaded, followed by the input provenance. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter static analysis tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is adequate on inputs and safety. It leaves open how detectors are chosen relative to the list_detectors sibling, and gives no sense of the result shape despite the trailing '...' implying more detector coverage.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a modest hint about where tools_json comes from ('another server's tools/list output') and says nothing about server_name or its default label, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('a supplied MCP tool listing') and enumerates the detector categories (description/schema poisoning, shadowing, obfuscation). The 'WITHOUT launching the server' clause implicitly separates it from scan_target, but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives clear triggering context: use this on another server's tools/list output when you have a static listing and do not want to launch the server. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., 'use scan_target to connect live'), so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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