scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no rules exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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, brief context, and organized parameter documentation. It's appropriately sized for a list tool with three parameters. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first, though the authentication rule explanation could be slightly more concise.

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 list tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context (pagination, errors, etc.) that would be helpful for an agent. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more operational guidance would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It successfully explains all three parameters: 'folder' (scope), 'rulebase' (pre/post with default), and 'tsg_id' (optional with default). The explanations add meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides, though some details like TSG_ID meaning could be clearer.

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: 'List authentication policy rules in a folder' with a brief explanation of what authentication rules do. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_create_authentication_rule' by being a list operation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'scm_list_addresses' beyond the resource type.

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 context through the explanation of authentication rules ('typically used with Captive Portal or MFA'), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No specific prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to similar list tools are mentioned.

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