scan_tool_definitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool scans for injection payloads but does not explain whether it modifies data, requires permissions, or has side effects. The lack of such information reduces transparency.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, very concise. However, it lacks structure or front-loading of key information; but given the simplicity, it is acceptable.

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 parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, whether the input is modified, or how to interpret results. Sibling tools provide similar scanning functions, but no differentiation is given.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the 'tools' parameter as 'List of tool definition objects'. The description adds no additional context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 verb 'scan' and the resource 'MCP tool definitions', and specifies the purpose: detecting hidden injection payloads (CVE-2025-53773). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_input or scan_tool_call, which target different inputs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scan_input or scan_tool_call. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or conditions for use, making it hard for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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