rt_inspect_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the connection methods (stdio, HTTP/SSE) and the action (enumerate, list), but does not mention potential side effects like starting a process, latency, or security considerations. Adequate but could be more 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 with no fluff. Front-loaded with the main action ('Connect to an MCP server') followed by enumeration details. Every word contributes meaning.

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 complexity (6 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output ('full server capability manifest'). However, it lacks details on manifest structure, error handling, or timeouts. Still fairly complete for a discovery tool.

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%, meeting baseline. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'url' for HTTP/SSE, 'command' for stdio). Parameters are self-explanatory from their descriptions.

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 an MCP server and enumerates all tools, resources, and prompts, returning a full capability manifest. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like rt_check_* tools which focus on specific security checks.

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 this tool is used for initial server discovery, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., before running checks). No conditional or exclusion criteria provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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