MCP Action Firewall

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions the reference is 'for MCP clients' but does not explain the return format, whether references are persistent, cached, or how they relate to the input parameters.

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 9-word sentence with no waste. While brief to the point of under-specification, it is appropriately front-loaded and every word conveys information (though minimal).

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?

Insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with partial schema coverage and no annotations. The description fails to explain output structure, differentiate from similar 'get' siblings, or compensate for the undocumented resourceType parameter.

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 exactly 50% (resourceId has description, resourceType does not). The description mentions no parameters, adding no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies for 50%+ coverage, though the description misses opportunity to explain the Text/Blob enum distinction.

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 a 'resource reference' but fails to define what that means (handle, URL, metadata?) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get-resource-links' or 'get-structured-content'. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') but the object remains vague.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get-resource-links), nor any prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The single sentence contains only functional description.

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