vet_directory

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 notes the tool is offline and returns a VetResult dict, but fails to mention side effects, required permissions, or whether it modifies anything. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified. The phrase 'Returns the VetResult dict' is redundant given an output schema exists, and the lack of parameter details makes the brevity feel like under-specification rather than effective economy.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no annotations, and only a minimal description. It does not explain the 'strict' parameter, what vetting involves, or any behavioral expectations. For a 2-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, this description is grossly incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning, but it does not mention 'path' or 'strict'. The path parameter is implied by 'directory', but 'strict' is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set it.

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 clearly states the tool's function: vetting a local MCP server source directory offline. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'offline' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like vet_server.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The offline/local context is implied but not developed into actionable usage guidance.

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