scan_tool_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scans and returns a risk assessment, but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or has side effects. Given the tool name, agents may infer it is safe, but explicit disclosure is missing.

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 concise with a two-paragraph structure and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds value—defining the purpose, listing checks, and explaining parameters. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, detailed return value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers parameter semantics well and the tool's purpose. However, it lacks usage context (when to use) and behavioral clarity (side effects), slightly reducing completeness.

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?

The schema properties lack descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description fully compensates by listing each parameter with clear explanations: tool_name, description, and input_schema as optional. This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Scan an MCP tool definition for security threats' with specific security checks listed (prompt injection, hidden unicode, etc.). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'scan_all_tools' by focusing on a single definition.

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 usage for security scanning but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_policy' or 'preflight_check'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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