check_exposure

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

The description is transparent about the tool's purpose and provides an example query. It discloses that the tool checks dependencies on MCP servers, which implies it reads data without modification. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it adequately informs.

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 sentences long, each sentence providing essential information: purpose and usage guidance. It is concise with no wasted words.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's function, usage context, and provides an example. Slight deduction for not describing the output format, but that is not critical.

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 has a clear description for the parameter 'npm', and the tool description adds an example ('axios') and context about what the parameter means. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides extra value beyond the schema.

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 checks which monitored MCP servers depend on a given package, with a specific verb (check) and resource (exposure of MCP servers). It is distinct from siblings like check_abuse or scan_package.

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 includes a usage context: 'Use this during incident response to find blast radius.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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