query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns the same result as resources/read (idempotent read), enumerates discoverable resource categories, and explains '!offset=N!limit=N' pagination, which is non-obvious and not in the schema. It does not cover error behavior for invalid URIs.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, and the pagination syntax is appended rather than buried. Slight cost: the 'for hosts without MCP resources' clause is jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description defers return-shape knowledge to 'same answer as resources/read' — a reference an agent may not be able to resolve, rather than a description of what a triage/taint/grep response looks like. URI discovery and paging are covered, so it is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about response structure.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining that the URI names a borer:// resource, that borer://help enumerates valid ones, and that offset/limit paging is embedded in the URI string — information the schema's one-line 'A borer:// resource URI.' does not convey.

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 gives a specific verb (Read) and resource class (borer:// resource) with concrete examples (triage, taint, emulate, solve, grep), and distinguishes itself from sibling analyses tools by saying it is for 'analyses no tool has'. It also names an equivalence ('same answer as resources/read'), though the odd 'for hosts without MCP resources' phrasing is cryptic without outside context.

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?

It explicitly states when to reach for it: cases 'no tool has' plus the discovery path 'borer://help lists them', and gives the paging syntax. It stops short of naming a specific sibling to avoid, but the 'no tool has' condition effectively carves out its niche against decompile/disassemble/search.

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