cfg_check_context_oversharing

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the behavioral burden by listing what it checks. However, it lacks explicit disclosure of side effects (e.g., is it read-only, does it modify files, what are the permission requirements). The examples provide some context but not a complete safety profile.

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?

Single concise sentence with specific examples. Every word adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description could mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of issues, report). It is adequate for a simple check but incomplete in describing the output format.

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% (path parameter has a description). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool checks for excessive context exposure and provides specific examples (servers inheriting all env vars, sensitive vars shared, broad resource access). This distinguishes it from sibling cfg_* tools like cfg_check_file_permissions or cfg_audit_mcp_config, though it could be more precise about what 'context' includes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it complements other checks. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be run before or after other cfg_* tools.

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