cfg_audit_mcp_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists what is checked but does not disclose whether the tool modifies anything, requires special permissions, or outputs in a specific format. For a read-only audit, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 long with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second lists checks. Every sentence adds value.

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 function and specific checks adequately for a simple audit tool. Missing is any hint about the output format (e.g., report, list of issues), which would aid usability, but the lack of output schema reduces the burden.

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 single parameter 'path' is well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating 'single MCP config file'. Baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Deep audit of a single MCP config file' and lists specific checks (API keys, secrets, etc.), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like cfg_check_transport_security by covering multiple checks in one tool.

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 implies use when a comprehensive check of one config file is needed, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs. individual cfg_check_* tools) or specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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