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 describes a read operation ('List'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the folder doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bullet-point-like 'Args' section that efficiently details parameters. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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., error handling, performance). The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but for a list operation with no annotations, more guidance on usage and constraints 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'folder' is explained with examples ('All', 'Texas'), 'rulebase' clarifies options ('pre' or 'post') and default, and 'tsg_id' notes it's optional with a default. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles and types, providing practical context that aids correct usage.

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 security policy rules in a folder.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('security policy rules'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'scm_get_security_rule' (singular) or 'scm_create_security_rule'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'scm_list_addresses'), which keeps it from 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 specifying a folder scope and rulebase options, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to prefer 'scm_search' or other list tools, nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is limited to parameter context.

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