vet_server

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return format (VetResult dict with verdict, findings, provenance, files scanned) and accepted input formats, but it does not explain whether the tool downloads/executes packages, requires network access, or has side effects. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's operational behavior beyond the basic input->output mapping.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose, then provides target formats and output structure. No filler or redundant information is present. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are already structured), the description adequately covers the main purpose, target formats, and output summary. The main missing element is the meaning of 'strict' and any usage exclusions, but overall the description is reasonably complete for a tool with two parameters. The absence of side-effect disclosure is a minor gap given the likely read-only nature of vetting.

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 description explains the 'target' parameter by listing the supported package identifier formats, which is not present in the input schema. However, the 'strict' boolean parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving its meaning and effect unknown. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only compensates for one of the two parameters.

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 a specific action ('Vet') applied to a specific resource ('remote MCP server') and enumerates accepted target formats (npm:pkg, pypi:pkg, gh:owner/repo, bare npm name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vet_directory, which presumably handles local directories. The mention of the VetResult dict further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 clear context by specifying 'remote MCP server' and the exact package identifier formats, implying it is intended for remote package references. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like vet_directory for local directories. Thus it has clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternative direction.

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