pageguard-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates operational constraints (no API key/network), file access patterns (package.json, .env, config files), and return value structure (ComplianceReport with specific fields). It does not mention side effects or idempotency, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Two information-dense sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by mechanism, operational requirements, and return value. Every clause earns its place.

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 absence of both annotations and output schema, the description compensates effectively by detailing the return structure (ComplianceReport contents) and operational requirements. For a single-parameter scanning tool, this provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage describing the path parameter, the description adds valuable semantic context about what constitutes a valid target directory (one containing package.json and config files to scan) and implies the nature of the input, exceeding the baseline expectations for fully documented schemas.

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 explicitly states the action (scan), target (local project directory), and mechanism (checking package.json, config files, and .env files against tracking signatures). It clearly distinguishes from sibling pageguard_scan_url by emphasizing 'local' and from pageguard_generate_docs by focusing on detection rather than documentation generation.

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 clear contextual guidance through 'No API key or network access needed,' implicitly positioning this as the offline/local alternative to pageguard_scan_url. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison statements naming the siblings as alternatives.

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