arcwall_scan_mcp

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

The description discloses what is scanned and for what, but lacks information on behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies files, requires network access, or produces output. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and could be more explicit about read-only nature and output format.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action and security checks, the second lists target config files. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor improvement could be more structured formatting, but it 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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete. It explains what the tool scans and for what issues. However, it does not describe the output or results format, which would be helpful for an AI agent to understand what to expect from the 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?

The single parameter 'path' is described in the schema and the description provides context about the scanned files, but the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 scans MCP server configurations for specific security issues like prompt injection, excessive permissions, and unverified origins. It also lists the specific config files it scans, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools that handle other security scanning tasks.

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 implies usage for scanning MCP configs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arcwall_scan_dependencies or arcwall_scan_secrets. No when-not or context for choosing this tool.

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