check_auth_config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It names the behaviors (checking for credential exposure and OAuth scope risks) but does not elaborate on what actions are performed, such as whether it modifies anything (it doesn't), what specific credential patterns are detected, or whether it returns found issues or only a summary. The output schema exists, which may explain return structure, but the description lacks depth.

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?

A single, clear sentence with adequate length; it is concise and gets to the point. It could be slightly more informative without being verbose, but it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 (one parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema), the description is mostly adequate for understanding purpose. However, with no annotations and no elaboration on the audit scope or limitations, the agent may need to infer details such as whether it checks for both credentials and OAuth scopes in one pass or if there are config formats expected. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but usage guidance for choosing this over siblings is missing.

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 schema includes a description for config_json, providing 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value by confirming it expects a JSON string of the server configuration, but this is essentially a restatement of the schema. No additional syntax, example format, or nuance is given, so the 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 audits an MCP server configuration for credential exposure and OAuth scope risks, specifying the resource and the two main risk categories. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the combination of 'audit' and 'configuration' distinguishes it from scanning tools that inspect servers or definitions.

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 context by focusing on configuration audit, and the required config_json parameter makes the input requirements clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over scan_mcp_server or check_endpoint_exposure, nor does it mention any exclusions or use cases like preliminary checks or post-deployment audits.

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