mcp_rugpull_diff

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states what is detected but not what happens on detection (block, warn, return a diff?), whether it is read-only, or how the required baseline/current inputs relate. Only the threat taxonomy is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key detection targets lead the statement. It is tight, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

For a two-required-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition omits input format, return/behavior semantics, and usage timing. It is too thin to invoke confidently without inspecting the schema or source.

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 0% for both required array parameters. The description provides no compensating detail about input format, expected shape of tool-list entries, or how baseline and current lists are compared, leaving the agent to infer everything from parameter names alone.

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 names a specific verb ('Detects') and three concrete failure modes: tools/list rug-pulls, shadow parameter injections, and coercive description mutations. That is enough to distinguish it from guard siblings like tool_output_firewall or mcp_sampling_guard, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. 'Mid-session' weakly implies it is run during an active session against a prior listing, but the agent must infer both the timing and whether this is a blocking check or an advisory report.

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