context_oversharing_auditor__scan_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the detection scope (what categories of oversharing it finds), but does not state that it is read-only/non-mutating, nor what the findings output looks like or whether severity/line info is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the long enumeration of pattern categories earns its place by precisely scoping detection. Slightly dense but efficient.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally explain the return/findings structure to fully guide an agent. It covers the 'what' well but leaves the result shape and read-only safety profile unstated.

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 params are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or content-type detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Scan) and resource (agent/MCP source) plus the exact rule category (OWASP MCP10:2025 context oversharing), enumerated with concrete pattern types. This clearly separates it from unrelated scanners, though it does not explicitly name scan_file/scan_directory siblings as the file-based alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'scan_text' name plus the required 'content' string param suggest it is for in-memory text rather than a file path. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over scan_file/scan_directory or list_patterns.

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