websex_jwt_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses a scope limitation: 'Signature verification is never implied,' which prevents an agent from over-trusting results. However, it omits auth requirements, whether the token is transmitted/stored, and any rate or side-effect information.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the finding list is front-loaded and the caveat is appended efficiently. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers what is checked and the signature caveat, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage it leaves gaps around the required engagement_id/token semantics and any safety profile for a security 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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters. The description's mention of issuer and audience mismatch implicitly maps to expected_issuer and expected_audience, but it gives no format or meaning for the required engagement_id and token, nor how the expected_* fields drive the audit. Compensation is partial at best.

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 (Audit) and resource (JWT structure and claims) and enumerates concrete findings (alg=none, missing expiry, issuer/audience mismatch). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools websex_jwt_decode or websex_jwt_deep_probe, leaving the agent to guess which JWT tool applies.

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 explains what the audit looks for but never states when to reach for this tool versus websex_jwt_decode or websex_jwt_deep_probe, nor any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the security-review framing alone.

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