compat_scan

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true; the description usefully extends this by specifying the read scope ("Scan never opens write/desktop/secrets") and listing what is deferred ("P4 desktop UI deferred"). That adds concrete behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not cover the return shape or fallback semantics of the bridge mode.

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?

It is short, but the compression comes at the cost of readability: a wall of terse P0-P4 fragments and mixed-language jargon ("兜底") rather than front-loaded, scannable prose. Density here is under-specification, not conciseness.

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 an undocumented parameter, the description needs to carry the burden of explaining what a scan returns and how includeInventory affects it. Instead it only enumerates opaque scan layers, leaving the agent unable to predict results or call it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (includeInventory) is never mentioned in the description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap, so the agent has no guidance on what toggling inventory on/off does.

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 names a resource ("Compat Catalog scan") but the verb/behavior is buried under opaque priority jargon: "P0 installed∩catalog + Partner drops", "P1 login clues", "P2 ports". An agent cannot form a clear mental model of what the scan actually produces, and it is not distinguished from siblings like environment_inventory or discovery_scan_host.

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?

There is only an implicit hint that P3 mcpServers is "兜底 only" (fallback only). There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools (environment_inventory, discovery_scan_host, capability_register).

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