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 the tool lists rules, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles pagination or large result sets, or any rate limits. The description adds some context about decryption rules but lacks critical operational details.

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 purpose, followed by explanatory context and parameter details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated into the 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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. The output schema existence means return values needn't be explained, but other gaps remain for a list operation tool.

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 meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'folder' scopes the query, 'rulebase' specifies which rulebase with defaults, and 'tsg_id' is optional with a default. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints.

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 decryption policy rules in a folder.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('decryption policy rules'), and adds context about what decryption rules control. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_get_decryption_rule' or 'scm_create_decryption_rule', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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 by mentioning 'folder' as a required parameter and providing defaults for 'rulebase' and 'tsg_id', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'scm_get_decryption_rule' for a single rule or 'scm_create_decryption_rule' for creation). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or alternatives.

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