Triage MCP configs (read-only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat the read-only nature (though it does, harmlessly). It adds valuable behavioral context by listing the specific issue categories scanned (broken JSON/TOML, PATH issues, env vars, relative paths, plain-http remotes, transport mismatches, cross-client drift), which goes beyond annotations. It does not describe the output format or error handling, but that is a minor gap.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main action and then lists the checks. It is not padded with fluff, though it is somewhat long due to the enumeration. It earns its length by specifying what the tool scans and what it reports, but could be slightly tightened.

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 there is no output schema, the description says it 'reports findings' but does not specify the output structure (e.g., a summary list, detailed report). It also does not mention any limitations (e.g., which clients are supported). However, the list of checks gives a good sense of the tool's coverage. With the annotations and parameter schema already present, this is adequately complete for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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 (cwd and file) have descriptions that fully explain their purpose. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or examples for these parameters, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 states a specific verb ('Scan') with a clear resource ('MCP configuration files of the agent clients') and enumerates the exact checks performed. It distinguishes itself from the sibling triage_fix by explicitly labeling itself 'Read-only', so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 clearly implies this tool is for diagnostics (scan and report) while the sibling triage_fix handles fixes, but it never explicitly mentions triage_fix or gives conditions like 'use this when you need to inspect configs without modifying'. The 'Read-only' tag provides strong context, but explicit alternative routing is absent.

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