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 the tool fetches a rule but omits critical details: whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the return format. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations in a clear 'Args:' section. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though the parameter details could be slightly more integrated into the main flow for optimal structure.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral traits (e.g., safety, errors), output details, and deeper usage context, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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 explains both parameters: 'rule_id' as a UUID for the security rule and 'tsg_id' as optional with a default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail UUID format or TSG alias specifics.

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 ('Get a single security rule') and resource ('by UUID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'scm_list_security_rules' (which retrieves multiple) and 'scm_create_security_rule' (which creates rather than fetches). The verb 'Get' is precise and 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 implies usage when a specific security rule's details are needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'scm_list_security_rules' for browsing or 'scm_search' for broader queries. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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