audit_appQueue a bounded audit of a public HTTP or HTTPS app and return an unlisted receipt URL. Reuse get_audit_result until processing completes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public website or application URL to audit |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| privacy | Yes | ||
| audit_id | Yes | ||
| hostname | Yes | ||
| receipt_url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that the audit is bounded and returns an unlisted receipt URL. No contradictions.
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, no fluff, front-loaded with the key action and outcome. Every sentence adds value.
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 an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the process. Slight lack of detail on audit bounds or prerequisites, but overall adequate.
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?
The only parameter 'url' is described in the schema with full coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action (queue an audit), resource (public HTTP/HTTPS app), and result (unlisted receipt URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_audit_result and create_distribution_plan.
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 tells when to use the tool and mentions reusing get_audit_result for polling. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: queueing an audit, retrieving results, creating a remediation plan, and fetching specific evidence. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: audit_app, create_distribution_plan, get_audit_result, get_customer_zero_evidence. The pattern is predictable and uniform.
With only 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain of auditing and remediation planning. Each tool serves a necessary function without excess or deficiency.
The tools cover the core workflow: queue audit, retrieve result, create plan, and get evidence. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no list or delete for audits), but the essential operations are present.