scan_mcp_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Discover and scan' implies a read operation, but it doesn't state whether it modifies anything, what it returns, how thorough the scan is, or whether it only scans the given path. There is no disclosure of potential side effects or performance implications. Minimal value beyond the literal meaning.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loads the main verb. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently detailed. Every word is used, but the ambiguity (e.g., 'discover and scan' vs just 'scan') means the sentence doesn't earn its place as the sole content.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description must explain the tool's return value and behavior. It does not mention what the scan produces (list of files? config contents?), how to interpret results, or whether the path is required (though default '.' is in schema). For a tool that likely serves as an inventory/analysis entry point, the description is incomplete.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'path' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain what 'path' refers to (directory root? file?) or how it affects the scan. Since the schema provides no semantic help and the description adds nothing, parameter understanding is left to guessing.

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 uses a clear verb+resource pattern ('Discover and scan project MCP configs plus agent instruction and skill components'), which states what the tool does. It is specific enough about the resource type to distinguish from generic scan tools like scan_workspace, but it doesn't fully delimit scope (what counts as 'agent instruction and skill components' is vague). Not a tautology, but could be sharper.

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 no mention of when to use this tool versus the many sibling scanning tools (scan_workspace, scan_text, scan_diff, etc.). No context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description offers no guidance on selection.

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