scan_security

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists vulnerability categories but does not disclose whether the scan is read-only, requires permissions, or modifies state. Missing safety profile and behavioral details.

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?

Single sentence with verb first, resource, and list of vulnerability types. No extraneous words, front-loaded key information.

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?

Lacks output schema and does not describe what the scan returns (e.g., severity, list of findings). For a tool that likely produces a report, missing return value information reduces completeness for agent decision-making.

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 has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'configPath' described. The description adds value by explaining what the scan checks for (CVEs, auth, etc.), going beyond the parameter's schema description.

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 specifies verb 'Scan', resource 'MCP server configurations', and lists specific vulnerability types (CVEs, auth, typo-squatting, secrets). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scan_prompt_injection' and 'scan_response_dlp'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is a general security scan, but does not state when to use other scan tools. Usage context is only implied.

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