MCP Tool-Poisoning & Prompt-Injection Manifest Scanner

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: client-side execution, zero PII, zero network, widget rendering. Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states purpose and output, second adds behavioral context. No extraneous words, front-loaded.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and ample annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, behavioral context, and privacy. The output is described as risk score and flagged patterns, which suffices.

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 tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides for the 'inputs' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool scans for tool-poisoning and prompt-injection smells, returns a risk score and flagged patterns, and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'lint_mcp_tool_definition' by focusing on security-specific analysis.

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 implies use for security scanning but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like 'lint_mcp_tool_definition' or 'score_mcp_readiness'.

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