rt_check_ansi_injection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read-only scan operation, but does not explicitly state whether it modifies data, required permissions, or return value structure. The term 'scan' suggests non-destructiveness, but more detail is needed.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the action and purpose. There is no wasted text; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

While the description covers the core purpose, it lacks details about return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the presence of 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description could be more complete to fully inform an agent.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, each with descriptions. However, the tool description itself adds no additional meaning about how parameters like 'url' or 'command' relate to the scanning operation. Baseline 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage without enrichment.

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 clearly states the tool scans tool descriptions and schema fields for ANSI escape sequences used to hide malicious text. It is specific about the threat and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rt_check_unicode_steganography and rt_check_prompt_injection.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. While the purpose implies a use case for detecting ANSI injection, there is no context about prerequisites or exclusions compared to other rt_check_* tools.

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