rt_verify_pins

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the tool connects, hashes, compares, and reports changes, including a warning about potential rug pulls. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, required auth, or side effects. The description carries moderate load but has gaps.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action ('Connect to server, hash current tool definitions, compare against stored pin') and then list report categories. No extraneous content.

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 description explains the output reports but lacks context about what a 'pin' is or how pin_name relates. With no output schema and complex parameters, more detail on the verification process and expected pin format would improve completeness.

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% with all 7 parameters described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline. No extra semantics provided.

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, hashes current tool definitions, compares against a stored pin, and reports added, removed, modified, and unchanged tools. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rt_check_* or rt_pin_tools.

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 usage for verifying pins against tool definitions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like rt_pin_tools or other checks. No when-not-to-use or context exclusions are given.

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