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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the tool reads or mutates anything, what it checks, what permissions it needs, or how its results are reported. 'audit' hints at a read-only inspection but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. A purely mechanical namespaced reference conveys no actionable information, so the single sentence does not earn its place.

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, no output schema, and no explanation of what a 'cleanup audit' produces or accepts, the definition is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Nothing about inputs, outputs, or expected workflow is conveyed.

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% – the single codeText parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the max length and the sanitization warning. With one well-described parameter and no added detail in the description, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool's namespaced identifier plus an alias in parentheses ('mediasfu-shared :: lifecycle.cleanup.audit (lifecycle-audit).'). It never states a readable verb-and-resource purpose, so the agent must infer from the dotted name alone. This is tautological rather than explanatory.

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 reference to any alternative among the many sibling tools (e.g. shared::room.lifecycle.plan, shared::runtime.diagnose). An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over another.

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