rt_check_instructions

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

No annotations provided; description lists scanning patterns but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the tool modifies state. It is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no waste, front-loaded with purpose and scanning items. Efficient.

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 security check tool, description covers key scanning patterns and context (MCP initialization). Missing output format, but acceptable given tool type.

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 all parameters described; description adds no additional detail beyond schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 analyzes server instructions for poisoning patterns, cross-origin references, and excessive length, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rt_check_prompt_injection and rt_check_tool_poisoning.

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 when to use (during MCP initialization checks) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among sibling tools.

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