clawguard-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: 'No API key required' (authentication needs), 'Returns the service status, API version, number of active detection patterns, and response time' (output content), and 'Check if...is healthy and responding' (read-only nature). It doesn't mention rate limits or error behavior, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 perfectly structured and concise: first sentence states purpose, second provides authentication context, third lists return values, fourth gives usage guidance, and fifth summarizes returns. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, has output schema), the description is complete. It explains purpose, authentication requirements, return values, and usage context. The output schema will handle detailed return structure, so the description doesn't need to duplicate that 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 zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on what the tool does and returns.

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 ('check if...is healthy and responding') and identifies the target resource ('ClawGuard Shield API'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on system health rather than pattern retrieval, usage data, 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to verify connectivity before running scans.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool (pre-scan verification) and implicitly suggests alternatives (use other tools for actual scanning operations).

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