scan_mcp_config

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the scanning scope and return values (risk score, issues, recommendations), which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the tool modifies state, requires authentication, or is read-only. The absence of such details limits transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and what it scans for, second states outputs. No fluff, front-loaded with key actions and results. Every sentence adds value.

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, the description outlines return values (risk score, issues, recommendations). The tool fits well among sibling security tools. It covers scope and output adequately but could mention idempotency or permissions. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters documented in schema). The description adds no new meaning beyond 'scan an MCP server configuration' — the schema already defines config object with command, args, env, and server_name. Baseline 3 applies as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb 'Scan' and resource 'MCP server configuration', listing concrete security issue categories (dangerous commands, exposed secrets, network exposure, container misconfigurations) and outputs (risk score, issues, recommendations). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_secrets' or 'detect_prompt_injection'.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., scan_secrets, detect_prompt_injection). The description does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid, or when other tools are more appropriate.

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