Fleet Scan

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that risk levels are category-derived (not made-up), that every field is traceable to a source, and describes the return structure. This goes beyond the 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 concise and well-structured: a succinct first sentence, followed by bullet points explaining design context, then a clear outline of return fields, and finally an explanation of risk derivation. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, input format, return structure, and risk level derivation. The only minor omission is error handling, but the output schema likely addresses that.

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 schema has only one parameter ('servers') with 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing examples of valid inputs (e.g., '@modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem, brave-search') and clarifying that it expects server names without versions. This helps the agent understand the parameter's format and use case.

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: batch-scanning MCP server names against a security metadata registry. It specifies the target (server names), the source (registry), and the action (batch-scan). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing its design for fleet inventory data with no version info, differentiating it from other scan tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Designed for fleet inventory data (EDR, SIEM, CSV exports) where you have server names but not versions.' This provides clear context for usage. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficiently informative for an agent to decide.

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