audit_mcp_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses functionality (lint, local, free) and return format (findings with severities and a 0-100 score). Could mention side effects or permissions, but as a read-only analysis tool it is fairly transparent.

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?

Description is a single efficient paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, then lists checks, then returns. No wasted words, though more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (2 params), the description adequately covers purpose, checks performed, and return type. It lacks detailed return format description, but the summary is sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%. Description adds clarity that the two parameters are mutually exclusive ('Provide this OR config_json, not both') and that config_json will be parsed, which adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it's a 'Governance lint for MCP server configurations' and lists specific checks (e.g., plaintext secrets, unpinned packages), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_preflight or verify_audit_chain.

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?

Description mentions 'free, local' and lists checks, implying use for MCP config auditing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it.

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