Analyze tool definitions (offline)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description corroborates this with 'without connecting to anything', which is helpful but largely restates the annotation. It does not describe what checks are run, what happens on a poisoned definition, or the report/output shape, so it adds only modest value beyond the structured hints.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The offline/CI context follows immediately and every clause carries 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?

For a two-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description explains input sourcing and usage context but says nothing about what the analysis returns or how results are surfaced (even though server_name mentions 'the report'). The return contract is left unspecified, which is a moderate gap.

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 50%: server_name is documented in the schema but the tools array is not. The description compensates by explaining that tools is the raw tool definitions passed in, e.g. the output of tools/list, which is genuinely useful format guidance beyond the schema. It still leaves the item-level shape unaddressed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Runs the tool-poisoning checks on tool definitions you pass in') and clarifies the input source is tools/list output from a server under development. It implicitly separates itself from live-connection siblings like audit_server_tools via 'without connecting to anything', though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It states clear usage contexts ('Useful in CI or before publishing an MCP server'), which tells an agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it does not reach a 5.

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