submit_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes that AgentSeal will fetch the server, run 265+ security probes, and add results to the public registry. This adequately discloses the tool's behavioral effects, though it could mention idempotency or duplicate handling.

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 followed by a critical requirement. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description lacks details on the return value or error handling. While it covers purpose, behavior, and a key requirement, it omits information about what the agent can expect as a response or how to handle failures.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter insight beyond the schema, only reiterating the 'confirmed' requirement. No additional meaning is provided for 'name' or 'package_type' beyond what the schema already offers.

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 submits an MCP server not in the registry for security scanning, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (check_environment, check_file, check_server, search_registry) by focusing on submission, not inspection.

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 the tool is for servers not in the registry, giving a clear usage condition. It also highlights the 'confirmed=true' requirement to prevent accidental submissions. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or compare directly with alternatives.

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