export_security_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds further behavioral context by stating it is 'Read-only' and detailing the output structure, including transitive call graphs and security categories. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then output format, then use case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 complexity (exporting security context with call graphs and flows), the description adequately covers purpose, output structure, and usage context. It lacks explicit differentiation from similar siblings and deeper parameter explanations, but combined with schema and annotations, it is sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. However, the description's explanation of the overall output indirectly helps understand the role of parameters like 'scope' and 'depth'.

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: exporting security context for MCP server analysis, generating a specific JSON output. It uses a specific verb (Export) and resource (security context), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on security analysis before installation.

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 ('Use to analyze MCP server security before installation'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or reference alternatives (e.g., sibling scan_security), which slightly reduces score.

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