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 indicates this is a read operation ('List'), but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is. The mention of PBF rules' purpose adds some context, but key behavioral traits are missing for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and concise: it starts with the core purpose, adds context about PBF rules, and then details parameters in a clear 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague information, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and some usage context. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or output structure, which are partially mitigated by the presence of an output schema but still leave gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description provides an 'Args' section that explains each parameter's purpose and defaults ('folder: Folder name to scope the query.', 'rulebase: Which rulebase — 'pre' (default) or 'post'.', 'tsg_id: Optional TSG ID or named alias. Defaults to SCM_TSG_ID.'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds significant value beyond the bare schema, clarifying semantics and usage, though it could include examples or format details.

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 policy-based forwarding (PBF) rules in a folder.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('PBF rules'), and scope ('in a folder'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'scm_get_pbf_rule' or 'scm_create_pbf_rule', which would require more specific context about when to use each.

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 some implied usage context by explaining what PBF rules are ('override routing table decisions — useful for directing specific traffic through a different egress interface or next-hop'), which helps understand when this tool might be relevant. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scm_get_pbf_rule' or 'scm_list_nat_rules', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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