rt_check_tool_mutation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior (connecting, snapshotting, comparing) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, resource-intensive, or whether it cleans up connections after use. It provides functional transparency but not operational safety details.

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 action and followed by the result and use case. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wordiness.

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 no output schema, yet the description does not specify what the comparison output looks like (e.g., a diff list, a boolean, a structured report). For a detection tool, this omission leaves the agent unsure how to interpret the results.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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 connects to a server, takes two snapshots with a configurable delay, and compares them to detect dynamic tool additions, removals, and description modifications. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rt_check_tool_poisoning or rt_check_tool_shadowing.

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 explicitly marks the tool as 'Critical for rug-pull detection in live sessions,' indicating when it should be used. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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