MCP Shamash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Manage' implies mutation operations, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are destructive, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when rules conflict. For a tool with multiple actions including 'add', 'update', and 'remove', this lack of behavioral context is a critical gap that leaves the agent guessing about the tool's operational characteristics.

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 extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the single phrase), it fails to convey necessary information about this multi-action tool. The structure is minimal but not effectively informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, nested object parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. A tool with 8 different actions including potentially destructive operations like 'remove' needs far more context about behavior, outcomes, and appropriate usage. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations or output schema, leaving critical gaps in understanding how this tool operates and what results to expect.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed documentation for all parameters including the 'action' enum values and the complex 'rule' object structure. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'rule' is required for 'add' but not for 'list'), nor does it provide examples or context about what constitutes a valid rule definition. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage with no added value from the description.

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 'Manage custom security rules' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'manage_custom_rules' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'manage' entails (CRUD operations, enable/disable, validation) or what 'security rules' are in this context. While the name suggests security rules, the description doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'check_compliance' or 'manage_false_positives'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'check_compliance' and 'manage_false_positives', an agent would have no indication whether this tool is for rule creation/maintenance versus rule application or false positive handling. The description is too generic to offer any usage direction.

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