Server defines 4 tools with basic descriptions and input schemas, but quality is inconsistent. Tool names lack clear action verbs (analyze_prompt vs get_threat_level). Descriptions are present but generic (avg ~80 chars, below 194-char baseline). No output schemas documented. Error handling absent. Security considerations for prompt analysis not addressed. Composition is reasonable (single responsibility per tool), but parameter documentation is severely deficient.

• Add parameter descriptions to all inputs. For 'prompt' in analyze_prompt, specify expected format (plain text, max length, encoding). For 'context' in analyze_prompt, explain what context means (URL, source, metadata). For 'prompts' in batch_analyze, document max array size and item constraints.
• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., analyze_prompt returns {threat_level: string, category: string, signals: array, similarity_scores: object}. Include field types, ranges, and what each field means for LLM reasoning.
• Add error handling guidance. Describe failure modes: 'If prompt is empty, returns error code EMPTY_PROMPT with message "Prompt cannot be blank." Retry with non-empty text.' This enables LLM self-correction.
• Rename batch_analyze to analyze_prompts for clarity and consistency with verb_noun pattern. Update description to specify max batch size (e.g., 'Analyze up to 100 prompts in a single call') and return structure (array of threat assessments with per-item success/failure).
• Add tool annotations (readOnlyHint) to all tools since they are read-only. This signals to agents that these calls are safe to retry and have no side effects, improving agent planning.