Kratos-MCP

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 but offers minimal insight. It implies a read-only check operation without detailing authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output might look like. For a security-related tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just three words ('Check user access permission'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of a security permission check tool, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide sufficient information for an agent to understand how to interpret results or handle edge cases. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns critical access decisions.

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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema already provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'action', 'resource', and 'user_id', the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or constraints.

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 'Check user access permission' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('user access permission'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'security_rbac_grant' or 'security_scan', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'security_rbac_grant' (for granting permissions) or 'security_scan' (for broader security checks), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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