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 what data is shown (e.g., tier, daily limits, usage count) and the requirement of an API key, which adds context beyond the input schema. It does not mention potential side effects, rate limits beyond status, or error handling, but for a read-only tool, this is reasonably comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific details in bullet-like clarity, and ends with prerequisites and return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, what data is retrieved, prerequisites, and hints at the return structure, providing sufficient context without overloading information.

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, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output. It implies no input is required, which aligns with the schema, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero parameters.

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 specific action ('Get API usage statistics') and resource ('for your ClawGuard Shield account'), with explicit details about what information is retrieved (tier, limits, usage count, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_patterns or scan_text by focusing on account usage metrics rather than pattern retrieval or scanning operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to check API usage statistics, including tier, limits, and request counts. It mentions the prerequisite ('Requires a valid API key'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as health_check for system status instead of usage metrics.

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