rt_check_cross_origin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the scan purpose and the threat model (tool shadowing attacks) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether it modifies state, requires network access, or produces output beyond scanning. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences, no superfluous words, front-loaded with purpose and examples. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 6 parameters for transport configuration but no output schema. The description does not explain what the scan returns (e.g., list of references or a report). Given the complexity and missing output schema, it is moderately complete.

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 coverage is 100% with 6 parameters fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 for cross-origin references, provides concrete examples ('when using the email tool'), and distinguishes from siblings like rt_check_tool_shadowing by focusing on references to tools from other servers.

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 implies usage for security scanning but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rt_check_tool_shadowing or other rt_check_* tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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