scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation tool, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate names), or if changes are immediate or require a commit. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, followed by a structured parameter list. Each parameter explanation is concise and adds value. However, the 'Args:' section could be slightly more integrated with the initial sentence for better flow.

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 complexity (16 parameters, mutation tool), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, side effects) and output details. For a creation tool in a security context, more completeness is needed despite the strong parameter coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 16 parameters, including explanations, examples (e.g., action values, default lists), and optional/default behaviors. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, fully documenting the parameters.

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's purpose: 'Create a security policy rule.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('security policy rule'), which is unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'scm_update_security_rule' or 'scm_delete_security_rule', though the action 'create' implies a distinction.

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 (e.g., existing folders or zones), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'scm_update_security_rule' or 'scm_move_security_rule'. Usage is implied by the action 'create', but no explicit context is given.

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