Compliance Posture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about scan behavior, return structure, and the notable fact that the nist_800_53_catalog score is independently scored and NOT folded into overall_score. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loaded with purpose. It is somewhat verbose, especially the Returns details, given that a full output schema exists. However, the special NIST 800-53 scoring nuance justifies the length.

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?

For a complex tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description fully explains scope, control mapping, return structure, and the separate NIST score. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The paragraph text essentially restates schema descriptions (config_path auto-discovers, image is a Docker reference) without adding new semantics or edge-case guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get OWASP LLM Top 10 / OWASP MCP Top 10 / MITRE ATLAS / NIST AI RMF compliance posture.' It clearly states what it does (scans MCP configurations, maps to 47 controls) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan or cis_benchmark by naming unique frameworks.

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?

Provides clear context: scans local MCP configs with optional config_path or image, auto-discovers if omitted. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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