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 states that the tool 'returns a risk assessment' but does not disclose whether it modifies any state, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. For a scanning tool, read-only behavior is likely but not explicit, leaving behavioral transparency low.

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: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clear Args block. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. 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?

With 3 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and parameters adequately. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need elaboration. However, it does not explicitly state which parameters are required (though that is in the schema), so completeness is slightly incomplete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's docstring provides meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'tool_name: The tool name to scan', 'input_schema: Optional JSON string'). This adds value beyond the schema's bare titles and compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Scan' and the resource 'MCP tool definition', and lists the specific threats it checks for (prompt injection, hidden unicode, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scan_all_tools', which likely scans multiple tools at once.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'check_policy' or 'preflight_check'). The usage is implied: whenever you need to scan a single tool definition. No when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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