Save audit report to disk

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about file path restrictions (escapes rejected) and automatic detection of audit result shape. This is useful but not extensive; the core behavioral insight (writes to disk) is already conveyed by the annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word is necessary; no fluff. Perfectly concise for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given the three parameters, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: what it does, input requirements (audit_result shape), file path constraints, and overwrite behavior. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that audit_result should be passed verbatim and that the tool auto-detects its shape. For path, it reiterates the relative-to-root and rejection behavior. This raises the score above baseline.

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 it renders an audit_page or audit_site result as Markdown and writes to a file under MCP_WORKSPACE_ROOT. The verb 'Save' and resource 'audit report to disk' are specific and unambiguous. Among siblings, only this tool performs file I/O, so it's well-distinguished.

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 indicates the tool is used after running audit_page or audit_site, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are all read-only or analysis-focused, making this the sole write operation. A slight nudge toward exclusivity would push this to 5.

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