rt_check_resource_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool enumerates and flags, indicating a read-like operation, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency or lack of side effects. Additional context about required permissions or server interaction would improve transparency.

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 front-loads the core action and then specifies the flags. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (enumerating resources and checking patterns), the description covers purpose but omits output format, error handling, and how the server command and args are used. Without an output schema, more detail on return values is needed for complete context.

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%, so the schema fully describes parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation. No parameter details are provided in the description.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: enumerating MCP resources and prompts, and flagging specific risks. It uses specific verbs ('Enumerate', 'Flag') and distinguishes from sibling tools like rt_check_auth or sast_scan_directory by focusing on resource exposure.

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 auditing but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rt_check_auth, rt_check_scope_creep) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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