MCP Action Firewall

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions the 'up to ten' limit (matching the parameter schema), but provides no information on what resource types are included, authentication requirements, or the data format returned.

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?

Single sentence is appropriately brief, but the phrase 'different types of resources' wastes space without adding specificity. Front-loading is adequate but content is underwhelming.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the basic operation but lacks critical context: what constitutes a 'resource link', what the output structure looks like (no output schema provided), and how this relates to sibling tools.

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 100% and the description mirrors the constraint ('up to ten'), but adds no semantic context beyond the schema (e.g., why one might request fewer/more links, or what the default of 3 represents). Baseline 3 appropriate for complete schema coverage.

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 states the tool 'Returns resource links' (verb + resource), but the phrase 'different types of resources' is vague. Crucially, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'get-resource-reference', which sounds nearly identical in function.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly the similar 'get-resource-reference' sibling. No mention of prerequisites or when the count parameter should be adjusted from its default.

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