mcp_config_auditor__scan_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool 'does not connect to those servers', i.e. it is a pure offline computation with no network side effects, but it says nothing about determinism, cost, or what the analysis produces.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the detection goal, then the input expectation, then the non-connection caveat. No filler.

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?

Covers purpose, required input provenance, and the key behavioral caveat for a one-parameter tool. With no output schema, a sentence on the shape of the shadowing findings would have closed the remaining gap.

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% and the single parameter carries an inline JSON example, so the schema already fully defines the input. The description reinforces what belongs in the inventory (tool names and descriptions per server) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3.

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+resource: 'Detect cross-server tool shadowing from an inventory of tool catalogs.' The input mode (pre-collected inventory rather than live servers) distinguishes it from the many scan_file/scan_directory siblings and from discover_shadow_mcp, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Pass the tool names and descriptions already collected from each installed server'), which implies you must have already gathered the catalogs. However, it names no alternative tools and states no explicit when-not, leaving the routing decision between this and discover_shadow_mcp or scan_file to inference.

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