Scan Stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, providing core safety and idempotency info. The description adds that the tool returns trust verdict and stack summary, but does not contradict annotations. Score reflects that annotations carry the bulk of behavioral disclosure.

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, directly stating the purpose, input formats, and output. Every word adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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 description covers the tool's input, output, and context effectively. With a single parameter, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, no additional information is essential for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully explains the single parameter 'input' by detailing what it should contain (dependency set in various formats). This adds significant context beyond the bare schema type 'string', compensating for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Bulk pre-connect trust check'), specifies the input (dependency set in multiple formats), and the output (trust verdict plus stack summary). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'bulk' and 'dependency set'.

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 explicitly lists acceptable input formats (requirements.txt, package.json, MCP client config, newline/comma list) and implies the context for bulk scanning. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, though sibling names offer some differentiation.

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