websex_openapi_audit

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. It does usefully disclose that results are 'evidence-backed leads' (not confirmed findings) and that they are persisted in the engagement, which tells the agent about side effects. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limiting, error handling for unreachable URLs, or whether the invocation is read-only.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the audit scope. No wasted words within the sentence, though the enumeration makes it slightly long. Structure is clear and the tool's domain is immediately obvious.

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-value explanation is unnecessary. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves key behavioral questions unanswered: required auth, side effects beyond persistence, and how to disambiguate from websex_openapi_inspect. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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% for both parameters. The description mentions 'a URL or engagement-relative path' which loosely maps to the 'source' parameter, but provides no format guidance, no distinction of when to use each form, and says nothing about 'engagement_id' (though the persistence note implies its role). With two undocumented params, the description does not adequately compensate.

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 a specific verb (audit) and resource (OpenAPI JSON document) and enumerates the concrete audit dimensions: operation inventory, auth coverage, path-parameter consistency, sensitive fields, and transport review. This is specific enough to distinguish from generic siblings like websex_http_request, though it does not explicitly call out its closest sibling websex_openapi_inspect.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Critically, the sibling list includes websex_openapi_inspect, which by name appears to serve a closely related purpose, yet the description gives no criteria for choosing between them. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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