Read AI security wiki reference content—methodology, glossary, source caveats, audit skill, personality, methods, or review rubric—when MCP hosts lack resource support.
Read the wiki method, glossary, source caveats or the portable audit skill and its required personality/methods/review lenses. Available even in MCP hosts without resource support.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context that it remains available even in MCP hosts without resource support, but it does not describe return format, invalid-name behavior, or other operational details.
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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a useful availability note second. The first sentence is somewhat dense, but it avoids wasted text.
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 read-only reference lookup with robust annotations, the description is adequate to convey the general purpose. However, with no output schema and incomplete coverage of the enum values, it leaves gaps around exactly which references are available and what is returned.
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?
The lone 'name' parameter has an enum of 13 values with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the semantic load. It names several content categories that map to some enum values, but leaves others like index, toolkit, agent-security, finding-template, and skill-sources unexplained and does not explicitly map labels to enum values.
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 read operation and names the resource categories it retrieves, such as wiki method, glossary, source caveats, and audit skill material. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_knowledge, get_risk, or get_control.
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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over search_knowledge or the get_risk/get_control siblings. The only usage-adjacent note is that it works in MCP hosts without resource support, which is not a selection guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.