Deploy to Agents

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: audit is 'bounded', returns 'unlisted receipt URL', and is async (implied by polling instruction). Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive.

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: first defines purpose and output, second provides usage hint. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter tool with full annotation coverage, the description sufficiently explains workflow and output. Minor omission: no error handling or receipt interpretation details.

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 covers 100% of parameter description (url). Description merely restates it: 'Public website or application URL to audit'. No additional semantic value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Queue a bounded audit', resource 'public HTTP or HTTPS app', and output 'return an unlisted receipt URL'. Distinct from siblings like get_audit_result.

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?

Explicit instruction to reuse get_audit_result until completion provides clear workflow guidance. Does not specify when not to use, but the polling pattern is well-communicated.

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?

The description indicates a write-like operation ('Turn into'), while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, creating a contradiction. The description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency or non-destructiveness beyond what annotations already provide, and the contradiction undermines trust.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and result. It is concise with no unnecessary 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?

Despite low complexity and schema coverage, the description lacks return format and fails to resolve the annotation contradiction. The tool's behavior is unclear due to the mismatch between description and annotations, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand invocation consequences.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a single parameter (audit_id), the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'Completed audit UUID'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding of the parameter's usage or format.

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 specific verb 'Turn' and resource 'completed technical audit into prioritized remediation plus actions', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings (audit_app, get_audit_result, get_customer_zero_evidence) by focusing on creating a plan rather than running audits, retrieving results, or gathering evidence.

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 when a completed audit is available ('Turn a completed technical audit into...') but does not explicitly state prerequisites, when to avoid using the tool, or compare with alternatives. No guidance is provided about using it if the audit is incomplete.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by listing exactly what attributes are retrieved (status, score, findings, etc.), providing helpful context beyond the safety profile.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundant words. Efficiently conveys all needed information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the key return fields (status, score, findings, etc.) and the single parameter is fully documented. Adequate for a simple read tool.

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% for the single parameter audit_id, with a clear description. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'audit result', listing specific fields (status, score, findings, privacy state, evidence URL). It distinguishes from siblings (audit_app starts audits, other tools unrelated).

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 when-to-use or alternatives guidance. Implies use after obtaining UUID from audit_app, but no exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about returning 'public self-audit evidence' and a 'boundary', but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authorization needs or rate limits.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action, but the phrasing is somewhat abstract.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the main purpose but leaves ambiguity about the exact nature of 'evidence' and 'boundary'. It is adequate but could be clearer.

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 are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; baseline score of 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 states it returns 'public self-audit evidence' and 'the explicit boundary...', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_audit_result, which may have similar functionality.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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