assess_mcp_security

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and description adds the scope of assessment against a specific standard without contradicting annotations. It doesn't detail internal process but is adequate given annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, containing no extraneous information. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand what the tool does and when to use it. No gaps remain.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter 'description' is already explained in the schema. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema property description provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'assess' with a specific resource ('MCP server deployment') and standard ('OWASP MCP Top 10 security risks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_mcp_top10' and 'assess_stack'.

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?

Implicit usage context is clear (security assessment against MCP Top 10), but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, even though many sibling tools exist (e.g., 'get_mcp_top10', 'threat_model').

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