rt_check_resource_content

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions scanning for specific patterns but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or whether it modifies state. The description implies it fetches content, which could have side effects (e.g., triggering server actions), but this is not addressed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and enumeration of scans. No extraneous information, earning every sentence.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and differentiation well. Missing details about return format or output structure, but overall sufficient given the complexity.

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 parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable. No elaboration on how 'max_resources' or transport parameters affect behavior.

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 reads actual resource content via readResource() and scans for specific patterns (poisoning, ANSI, steganography, oversized). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rt_check_resource_exposure, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by comparing with rt_check_resource_exposure, implying when to use this tool (when deeper content inspection is needed). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or performance considerations.

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