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 this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 core purpose, followed by context on schedules and a parameter section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the parameter explanations could be more integrated, and minor structural improvements could elevate it to a 5.

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 low complexity (list operation), 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a simple tool, this is adequate but with clear gaps, aligning with a minimum viable score.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'folder' scopes the query and 'tsg_id' is optional with a default, but doesn't detail format, constraints, or examples (e.g., what a valid folder name looks like). Since it partially clarifies the two parameters but leaves gaps, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 schedule objects in a folder.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('schedule objects'), and distinguishes schedules as 'recurring (weekly) or non-recurring (one-time) time ranges' used in security policy. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_get_schedule' or 'scm_create_schedule', which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that schedules are for 'security policy' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to other list tools (e.g., 'scm_list_addresses'). Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it falls short of higher scores.

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