rt_check_prompt_injection

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It describes the scanning actions but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies server state or requires special permissions). The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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, efficient. The first sentence is long but packed with relevant details. No wasted words, though the list could be formatted for easier reading.

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?

Tool has no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of vulnerabilities, severity scores). The connection parameters (url, command, etc.) are adequately handled by the schema. Missing output representation is a gap.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions. Description adds only 'Check only this prompt (default: all prompts)' beyond schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; the description adds marginal value.

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 it fetches prompt content via getPrompt() and scans for specific injection patterns (poisoning, template injection, dangerous arguments). It distinguishes from 'metadata inspection' and has a unique scope among sibling tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rt_check_resource_content or other checks. Usage is implied by the name and description, but there are no exclusions or context for when not to use it.

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