scan_security

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions scanning for vulnerabilities but omits whether the tool is read-only, modifies anything, requires special permissions, or what the output format is. Significant gaps remain.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Scan', and directly states the resource and vulnerability types. It wastes no words and is perfectly concise.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide return value information (e.g., list of vulnerabilities, report format) but does not. It also lacks safety details (e.g., destructive or read-only). Completeness is inadequate.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter (configPath) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 security vulnerabilities, listing specific types (CVEs, auth, typo-squatting, secrets). This distinguishes it from siblings like audit_costs, which likely focus on cost, and check_health, which may cover operational health.

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 security scanning usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling names.

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