rt_check_tool_shadowing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the detection goal but does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, requires network access, or how it determines shadowing. Key behavioral traits (e.g., false positive risks, connectivity needs) are missing.

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: the first states the core function, the second explains the threat scenario. No redundant information, efficiently front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 absence of an output schema and the complexity (7 parameters, including nested objects), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format, how to interpret results, or provide usage examples. An agent would lack guidance on post-detection actions.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter insight beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for a tool with well-documented parameters.

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's purpose: 'Detect tools with names that shadow common MCP tool names...' with specific examples (read_file, write_file, execute_command). This verb-resource pairing is distinct from sibling rt_check_* tools, which focus on other security aspects like injection, authentication, or 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rt_check_tool_poisoning or rt_check_tool_mutation. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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