scan_tool_poisoning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions scanning and extraction from code but omits important behaviors such as network access/repo cloning (only mentioned in the schema's source_url parameter description), potential side effects, and what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a tool that may clone external repositories.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the purpose, usage context, and input methods.

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 purpose and inputs well, but it lacks information about the output format and edge cases (e.g., what happens if neither tool_definitions nor source_url is provided). With no output schema to compensate, this leaves some gaps, though the core functionality is adequately described.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the OR relationship between tool_definitions and source_url, which is not explicit in the schema. However, it doesn't add further semantics beyond that, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('scan'), a clear resource ('MCP tool definitions'), and a detailed scope (hidden instructions, unicode tricks, obfuscated payloads, manipulation patterns). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like discover_servers or audit_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 explicitly states 'Use this to check if a server's tools contain poisoning indicators', providing a clear context for when to use it. It also explains the two input modes (tool_definitions or source_url). It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools serve different purposes, so the context is sufficient.

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