mcp_config_auditor__discover_shadow_mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does provide one important behavioral guarantee: it 'Does not start any MCP server.' However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it modifies config files, permission requirements, or what form the 'flag' output takes.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and includes only useful qualifiers such as the host applications and the no-server-start boundary. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the essential purpose, scan scope, allowlist checking, and the safety boundary of not starting MCP servers. It is slightly incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema because it does not describe the returned findings format or permission assumptions.

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 baseline is 3. The description references the allowlist concept in context but adds little parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides for home, allowlist, and includeContentAudit.

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 states a specific verb ('discover') and resource ('MCP client configs in well-known host paths'), names the relevant host applications, and explains the additional behavior of flagging servers not on an allowlist. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as mcp_config_auditor__list_host_config_paths or mcp_config_auditor__scan_file.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate: auditing well-known host config locations for Shadow MCP. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use list_host_config_paths or scan_directory instead), but the intended usage is readily inferred from the scope.

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