audit_mcp_server_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses offline operation and no external service requirement, indicating no data exfiltration. It also lists detection categories, but doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior or potential false positives.

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 one dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Audit') and then lists specific risk categories in a scannable way. While the list is long, each item adds distinct value and the overall length is justified.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its offline nature. It doesn't explain output format, but that's covered by the schema. Minor gap: no explicit use-case example, but overall 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?

The single parameter config_json is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, including instructions to paste full content rather than a path. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') with a clear resource ('MCP client configuration') and enumerates concrete risk categories it detects, making it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like scan_secrets or check_dependencies.

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 provides useful context that the tool works offline and requires the config JSON, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative sibling tools.

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