clawguard-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by specifying the return format (dictionary with total pattern count and categories breakdown) and listing example categories (e.g., prompt_injection, jailbreak). It also mentions 'No API key required,' which adds useful context about authentication needs. However, it lacks details on rate limits or potential errors.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and followed by organized details (categories, return format, authentication note). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 tool's complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, provides example categories, specifies the return structure, and notes authentication details. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to exhaustively explain return values, and it covers all necessary context for effective use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the inputs. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate, but it compensates by explaining the output semantics (e.g., returns a dictionary with specific fields). This goes beyond the input schema, warranting a score above the baseline of 3.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('List all available') and resource ('ClawGuard detection patterns'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_usage, health_check, scan_batch, and scan_text which have different functions. It provides concrete details about what is returned (42+ security detection patterns organized by category).

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 by stating 'No API key required,' suggesting this tool is accessible without authentication, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_text or scan_batch. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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