guardian_mcp_audit

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the input modes and output format but does not mention side effects, permissions, safety (read-only vs destructive), or limitations. It is transparent about functionality but lacks behavioral depth.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, two usage modes, output. Front-loaded, no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2 non-required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains inputs and output adequately. It could specify the return format more precisely (e.g., list of objects) but is sufficient for selection. No extra behavioral context needed given simplicity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that omitting descriptions triggers autoload from Claude Desktop config and that config_path overrides the default. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 audits MCP tool descriptions for prompt-injection/suspicious patterns. It specifies two modes (explicit list or autoload) and output (matched hits with snippets). This distinguishes it from sibling guardian tools like guardian_scan or guardian_report.

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?

The description explains how to use the tool (pass descriptions or omit to autoload) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like guardian_scan or guardian_alerts. No guidance on when not to use it.

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