argus_capabilities

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'no LLM call', 'no provider auth required', 'Read-only, idempotent', and return format. Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint; description reinforces and expands without contradiction.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: purpose, usage guidance, side effects, return format, example. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 lacking output schema, description fully specifies return JSON structure. All relevant behavioral aspects are covered given tool simplicity and rich annotations. No gaps for effective use.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for the single boolean parameter, including description and example. Description adds an example call but no new semantics beyond schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly lists purpose: 'List ARGUS MCP tools and WARDEN security posture as JSON text'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning argus_ask (task execution) and argus_status (cheap ping). Verb 'List' and resource are specific.

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?

Explicitly states 'When to use: discovery' and 'When NOT to use: executing a user task or a cheap ping', with alternatives named (argus_ask, argus_status). Provides clear decision criteria.

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