scm-mcp

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. It states 'Create' implying a write operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are immediate or require commit, error handling, or rate limits. It lacks critical behavioral context for a creation tool in a network security context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Each parameter explanation is concise and to the point. While slightly lengthy due to 13 parameters, every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, and the structure aids readability.

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 creation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers parameters thoroughly but lacks behavioral context (e.g., commit requirements, error responses). It's adequate for parameter semantics but incomplete for overall tool understanding, given the complexity and mutation nature of the operation.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage and 13 parameters (4 required), the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's purpose, format, and defaults. It provides concrete examples for the 'action' parameter (nexthop, discard, no-pbf), clarifies defaults (e.g., source defaults to ['any']), and explains optional vs. required fields, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Create a policy-based forwarding rule') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'scm_update_pbf_rule' (update) and 'scm_delete_pbf_rule' (delete). It specifies the resource type (PBF rule) and the creation context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 like 'scm_update_pbf_rule' or 'scm_delete_pbf_rule', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., existing folder, zones). It only lists parameters without contextual usage advice, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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