teeshield

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits like scanning for specific vulnerabilities and returning a security rating with recommendations, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on execution time, error handling, or resource requirements, leaving gaps for a security tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and key checks. It uses two sentences efficiently, but could be slightly more concise by combining some listed vulnerabilities without losing clarity.

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?

Given the complexity of a security scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, and high-level outputs, but lacks details on return format, error cases, or limitations, which are important for such a tool.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'target' documented as 'GitHub repo URL or local directory path.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('scan', 'checks', 'scores') and resources ('MCP server'), listing multiple vulnerability types and assessment categories. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'check_agent_security' by focusing on server evaluation rather than agent security.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided with 'Use when evaluating whether an MCP server is safe to install or deploy,' giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. The description also implies an alternative scenario (security assessment) without naming the sibling directly, but the context is sufficiently distinct.

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