rt_inspect_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool connects via stdio and returns a manifest, implying a read-only inspection. It does not mention side effects like modifying files or network connections, but the action is inherently read-only. The description is clear enough with no contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main action and output. Every sentence is essential and makes an immediate impact. No wasted words.

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 purpose (inspecting a server) and the high schema coverage, the description adequately covers both input and output. It explicitly states what is returned (full server capability manifest) and the method (stdio). The tool is well-defined despite average 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as typical values or relationships. It earns the baseline score.

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 via stdio, enumerates tools with descriptions/schemas, lists resources and prompts, and returns a full capability manifest. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly audit 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives is provided. The purpose is implied, but there is no mention of when not to use it or how it compares to other inspection tools. Siblings include many check tools, but no direct alternative is named.

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