rug_pull_detector__list_baselines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word "List" and the scoping to "this scanner's stored baseline" imply a read-only, state-inspecting operation, but it does not state that it is side-effect free, whether auth is required, or what happens when no baselines exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier ("this scanner's stored baseline") earns its place by narrowing the result set.

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 zero-argument listing tool this is nearly sufficient, and it conveys what the result conceptually is (servers with baselines). With no output schema present, it could say slightly more about the shape of each entry, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-level the description could add or omit.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus a well-defined resource ("every server this scanner has a stored baseline for"), which implicitly separates it from the sibling baseline_server (creates baselines) and check_server (runs a check). It stops short of naming or contrasting those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to discover which servers have baselines before calling check_server. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no preconditions, and no mention of the sibling tools it complements.

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