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. It mentions scanning for PII and secrets but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves sensitive data processing.

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 with a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 security scanning (sensitive data handling) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes PII/secrets, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for agent usage.

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 the schema fully documents the 'text' and 'redact' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying scanning occurs on the text, which aligns with the schema but 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Scan') and target ('text for PII and secrets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'security_encrypt' or 'security_gdpr_delete', 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 like 'security_encrypt' or 'security_gdpr_delete', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without context for selection.

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