check_endpoint_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key constraint: it only scans localhost and allowlisted hosts (SSRF protection). However, it does not disclose whether the probe is read-only, whether it sends network requests that could trigger alarms, or any side effects of probing. Given the output schema exists, return details are covered, but the behavioral surface is only partially disclosed.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second adds a key constraint. There is no redundant information or filler, making it efficient for an agent 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?

The tool is moderately simple with two parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the core purpose and a key constraint. However, it lacks usage guidance and a fuller behavioral disclosure (e.g., side effects or reversibility), which are important for a scanning tool that sends probes. The description is adequate but not complete enough for an agent to use it confidently without additional inference.

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 input schema already documents both parameters fully (host with SSRF allowlist note, port with default). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 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 states a specific verb 'probe' with a clear resource 'an MCP server' and enumerates the exact things it looks for (admin panels, debug routes, dangerous ports). This makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling scan tools like scan_mcp_server (broader scanning) or check_auth_config (focused on authentication).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The only constraint mentioned is the SSRF allowlist, which is a limitation rather than a usage condition. The description does not name alternatives or state circumstances that would make this tool preferable, leaving the agent to infer its niche from the name and siblings.

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