scan_mcp_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It correctly states it scans for specific issues and that rug-pull requires a server, but it does not clarify if the tool modifies anything or what happens if no server is provided.

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 efficient sentences: first covers purpose and threats, second covers input format and optional feature. No redundancy or extra 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?

The description lacks any mention of what the scan returns (boolean, report, etc.). Given there is no output schema, this is a notable gap. Otherwise, it covers input, optional parameters, and detection scope adequately.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: 'nested parameter descriptions are scanned too' for inputSchema, 'enables rug-pull detection by fingerprinting' for server, and default threshold value.

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 uses specific verbs ('Scan') and resources ('MCP tool definition') and lists the exact threats (tool-poisoning, rug-pull) and input format. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_tool, scan_data, security_status.

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 when to use the tool (suspect poisoning or rug-pull) and how to enable rug-pull detection via 'server'. It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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