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 reveals that the tool processes texts individually and returns all results, which is useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what constitutes 'security threats' in the results.

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: it starts with the core purpose, explains the batch behavior, provides usage context, then documents parameters and returns in a clean format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (batch processing), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter constraints, and behavioral context. The main gap is the lack of security context about what threats are detected, but the output schema likely addresses result structure.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'texts' is a 'List of texts to scan' and specifies a practical constraint ('max 10 per call') that isn't in the schema. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't detail the format or content expectations for the texts.

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 ('Scan multiple texts for security threats') and distinguishes it from the sibling 'scan_text' by emphasizing batch processing ('multiple texts', 'each text individually', 'multiple user inputs, chat messages, or document sections in one call'). It explicitly differentiates from the single-text scanning alternative.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states when to use this tool ('Useful for checking multiple... in one call') and implicitly when not to use it (for single texts, use 'scan_text' instead). It names the alternative tool by context and specifies the optimal use case scenario.

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