audit_exam_browser_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether auditing mutates state, whether it consumes or finalizes preview answers, what permissions or session state it needs, or what 'unverified' means operationally. With zero annotations and a mutation-ambiguous verb, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded, but the brevity comes from ambiguity rather than efficiency; the second clause is cryptic and does not clearly earn its place given how little the first clause establishes.

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 needn't be explained, but with four required undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no explanation of the audit's effect on session state, the definition is far short of what an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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% and all four parameters (run_id, tab_id, exam_url, html_source) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning whatsoever about what any parameter should contain or how html_source relates to the audit.

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 phrase 'Audit all observed preview answers' gestures at a verb-plus-resource, but 'audit' is undefined and the second clause ('earlier unreviewed questions remain unverified') reads more like a caveat than a scope statement. It is not distinguishable from close siblings such as audit_exam_preview or preview_owned_exam_questions, which use nearly identical vocabulary.

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 statement of when to call this versus audit_exam_preview, preview_owned_exam_questions, or review_current_exam_answer. The clause about unreviewed questions hints at a precondition but never says what to do about it or when the tool should be preferred.

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