scan_tool_poisoning

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what it scans for and input methods, but lacks details about side effects (e.g., whether source_url clones a repo, output format, or if it is read-only). It adds context but is not fully exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second covers usage and input options. No wasted words, front-loaded with critical information.

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?

Despite good input guidance, the description omits output information (what returns, format, status codes). With no output schema, this is a significant gap for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining the structure of tool_definitions objects and the conditional usage of source_url. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions, which only list properties.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Scan MCP tool definitions for hidden instructions, unicode tricks, obfuscated payloads, and manipulation patterns.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with packages or servers.

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 states when to use it ('check if a server's tools contain poisoning indicators') and provides input options (tool_definitions or source_url). However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.

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