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. It indicates this is a read operation ('List') and explains what QoS rules are for, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output contains. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps 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 appropriately sized: a clear purpose statement, explanatory context about QoS rules, and a parameter section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the parameter details after the purpose, but overall it's 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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., how results are returned, error handling). The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but other operational aspects are missing, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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: explains 'folder' scopes the query, 'rulebase' options ('pre' or 'post') with a default, and 'tsg_id' as optional with a default. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

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 QoS policy rules in a folder' with additional context about what QoS rules do. It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('QoS policy rules'), and scope ('in a folder'), making it distinct from other list tools like scm_list_addresses. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from scm_get_qos_rule, which appears to fetch a single rule rather than list multiple.

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 through the parameter documentation (folder scoping, rulebase selection), suggesting when to use certain arguments. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like scm_get_qos_rule or scm_search, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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