mcp_server_auditor__scan_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose detection scope, which tells the agent what kinds of findings to expect, but it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, that it performs static analysis only (no execution), or anything about output shape or limits. Reasonable detection context, but key behavioral facts for a scanner are absent.

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 the target (text/code snippet) before the parenthetical detection list — dense and waste-free. Slightly list-heavy in one breath, but every clause identifies a real pattern category rather than padding.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool the description is adequate on the 'what it detects' axis. It leaves open what a returned finding looks like and how it differs from sibling scan_text auditors, which an agent picking among ~20 similar scanners would want.

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 coverage is 100% (both `content` and the optional `label` are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, size, or format guidance for `content` (e.g. whether a full file or a snippet is expected), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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?

Specific verb (Scan) plus resource (text string/code snippet) and an explicit enumeration of what it looks for (excessive-agency names, shell/eval/SQL/SSRF sinks, permissive schemas, hardcoded secrets, wildcard CORS). That pattern list meaningfully narrows it against the many sibling scanners. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other *_auditor__scan_text siblings (tool_poisoning, a2a, elicitation), which share the identical verb+resource shape.

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 agent must infer that this is the tool for text already in hand versus scan_file/scan_directory. There is no explicit 'when to use this over X' and no stated prerequisite (e.g. the text must be an MCP server/tool definition, which is implied but never said).

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