memoryguard_external_mcp_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully reveals that the operation classifies (L0-L4), persists the descriptor, returns a detection result, and avoids live server calls. This goes beyond a generic 'import' and gives the agent an accurate mental model of side effects and scope, though it omits details like overwrite behavior or error handling.

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 tightly written sentences: the primary action and inputs in the first, the processing steps and return value in the second, and a crucial scope clarification in the third. Every sentence adds distinct information, with no filler or repetition of schema contents.

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?

The description covers the essential context for a single-required-parameter tool: what is imported, what processing occurs, what is returned, and the critical boundary (no live server call). It lacks return-format details and explicit relationship to nearby import/preview tools, but given the schema completeness and the tool's modest complexity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented with names and descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond reiterating that the input is descriptor JSON and that import is descriptor-level, which is already captured by the schema's descriptor_json description. This meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 a specific verb ('Import'), a specific resource ('external MCP descriptor (JSON)'), and the concrete outcomes: classifies the server (L0-L4), persists it, and returns the detection result. It also distinguishes itself from live MCP invocation with 'descriptor-level import only; does not call the live MCP server,' making the tool's role unmistakable among siblings.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: importing descriptor-level JSON only, and explicitly says it does not call the live MCP server. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., import_preview or external_mcp_list) or give conditions for choosing them over this tool, so it falls short of full explicit routing guidance.

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