Tool Capability Risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and behavior. The description adds the term 'live-introspected', suggesting real-time introspection, which implies potential performance or network effects. However, it does not elaborate on specific behavioral traits like timeout handling or data freshness, so the added value is limited.

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 a single sentence, free of fluff, and front-loaded with the key action. However, 'live-introspected' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be replaced with simpler language without sacrificing brevity.

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 presence of a output schema (not shown) and strong annotations, the description need not explain return values or side effects. However, it fails to clarify what 'score' means or how risk is assessed, which could leave an agent uncertain about the tool's output format and granularity.

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%, with each parameter (config_path, timeout) fully documented. The tool description mentions neither parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 'Score' and identifies the resource as 'live-introspected MCP tool capabilities and server risk', making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the many risk-related siblings like 'blast_radius' or 'exposure_paths', leaving some ambiguity in differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or conditions, leaving the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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