rt_pin_tools

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

The description discloses key behaviors: connects to server, hashes tool definitions, stores pin file. However, without annotations, it lacks details like side effects (e.g., overwriting existing pins), storage location, or error handling. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by usage context. No unnecessary words. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 (7 params, nested objects) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description covers the main purpose but omits details like return values, idempotency, and error scenarios. It is moderately complete.

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 all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, except context that pin_name is used as a filename. Baseline 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's function: connecting to a server, hashing tool definitions, and storing as a pin file. It explicitly mentions the purpose ('rug pull detection') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rt_verify_pins.

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 provides clear usage context: use this tool to create a baseline pin file, then later use rt_verify_pins for change detection. It implies a workflow but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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