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 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid UUID), or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief 'Args' section. There's no wasted text. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but it remains efficient.

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 (a read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication, error handling, response structure, and usage context. While it covers basic purpose and parameters, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent invocation without additional assumptions.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'rule_id' as 'UUID of the decryption rule' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. This clarifies data types and purposes beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't cover format details (e.g., UUID version) or TSG alias examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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: 'Get a single decryption rule by UUID.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('decryption rule'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_list_decryption_rules' (list vs. get single). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools (e.g., 'scm_get_decryption_profile'), though the resource name makes it clear.

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., needing a valid UUID), compare it to 'scm_list_decryption_rules' for browsing, or specify error conditions. The only implicit context is the parameter descriptions, which are basic.

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