AgentGuard by Audiscape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait that this is a live external network call rather than a cached lookup. It does not say whether the call requires auth, how slow or rate-limited it is, whether it persists an audit record, or how the 'mode' changes behavior. Useful but incomplete for an unannotated mutation-adjacent tool.

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 zero filler and the essential verb/resource/return pattern up front. It is arguably too terse for a tool with an undocumented enum parameter, but nothing written is wasted.

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-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an unexplained enum, the description does the minimum: it covers what is returned but leaves the mode taxonomy and any operational caveats (auth, latency, rate limits) entirely unaddressed. It is not sufficient for correct invocation when a required choice among four opaque modes exists.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description needs to compensate and does not. 'domain' is already documented in the schema, while 'mode' — a four-value enum (citerank, checkoutguard, agentguard, signalstrike) whose semantics are entirely opaque — is never mentioned. An agent cannot infer from the description what choosing a mode does or which to pick.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run a live HTTP audit against a public domain'. The return values (score, grade, report URL) are also named, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't differentiate from siblings, but the siblings listed (create_checkout_session, get_remediation_preview, guard_check_session) serve unrelated purposes, so the ambiguity risk is low.

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 word 'public' implies a scope constraint (no authenticated or internal targets), which is implicit usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to reach for this versus get_remediation_preview or guard_check_session, and no prerequisites or cost warnings. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that an external Stripe link is produced, but says nothing about side effects (does it create a persistent session/charge?), auth or account requirements, idempotency, or whether the link expires. For a payment-adjacent creation tool this is a significant gap.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing guidance rather than a virtue in itself.

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 tool that initiates an external payment session with no annotations, no output schema, and an entirely undocumented enum parameter, the description leaves too much unspecified: what mode changes, what the caller must have done beforehand, and what state the call creates.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies the 'domain' parameter; the 'mode' parameter with four opaque enum values (citerank, checkoutguard, agentguard, signalstrike) is never explained, nor is whether mode is optional or what the default is.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a Stripe checkout link for a domain's remediation pack. An agent can tell roughly what it produces, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_remediation_preview or guard_check_session, which also touch the remediation flow.

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 (e.g. must a preview/audit exist first?), and no mention of when to prefer get_remediation_preview or guard_check_session. The only hint of context is the phrase 'for the remediation pack', which implies usage but does not state it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that a preview and URL are returned, without saying whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, whether the preview is generated on demand, or what the URL represents. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant omission.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words and the key outcome, remediation preview and scorecard URL, is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more weight than it does. It mentions the return values only in passing and does not explain what the remediation preview contains or what the scorecard URL is for, leaving an agent without enough context to use the result confidently.

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?

There is one required parameter, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds only the phrase 'for a domain.' It does not clarify the expected format of the domain value, such as a domain name versus an internal identifier, so the parameter remains underspecified.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource: it returns a remediation preview and scorecard URL for a domain. This is much clearer than a tautology and tells the agent what the tool produces. It does not differentiate from siblings such as audit_domain, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not explain whether this should be called before or after audit_domain, or why an agent would choose this over that sibling. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and one-sentence description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the detection rules in useful detail: identical and near-repeat loops, re-reads of finished items, failing-tool retry streaks, and USD/token caps. What it omits is the decision output shape (there is no output schema) and any statement that the check is a pure, side-effect-free replay — gaps that matter for an agent deciding how to act on the result.

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 core action (replay and decide) before the enumeration of caught conditions. The rule list is dense but each item conveys a distinct guard condition, so little is wasted.

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 tool with nested objects, 33% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate on inputs and detection semantics but silent on the returned decision format and the role of the config object. An agent knows what the tool checks but not what it gets back or how to act on it.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It conceptually maps "agent's tool-call log" to the calls array and "the next call" to next, but never mentions the optional config parameter (agentguard.json) or the semantics of the call fields, leaving the schema to do most of the work.

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 uses concrete verbs ("replay", "decide") against a specific resource (an agent's tool-call log through the AgentGuard loop and budget guard), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the siblings (audit_domain, create_checkout_session, get_remediation_preview), though those are clearly unrelated domains, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

"Decide whether the next call should run" implies a pre-execution gating use case, and "before spend" hints at when to invoke it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a full call log must be supplied), and no named alternative.

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