save_audit_report

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

With no annotations, description must fully disclose behavior. It states writing to a file under MCP_WORKSPACE_ROOT and implies overwrite by default (overwrite defaults true). However, it does not detail error handling (e.g., what if file exists and overwrite false), return value, or potential side effects. Adequate but has gaps.

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 that efficiently conveys action, source, output format, and destination. No extraneous words; front-loaded with key information.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers essential aspects: input source, output format, destination path conventions. It omits details like behavior when overwrite is false or invalid input, but is largely complete for typical use.

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 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The description adds context: for audit_result it specifies it should be from audit_page or audit_site; for path it clarifies relative resolution to MCP_WORKSPACE_ROOT (or cwd). Overwrite is not described further, but the default is noted. Overall improves parameter understanding beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool renders an audit_page or audit_site result into a Markdown report and writes it to a file. It specifies the source (audit results), output format (Markdown), and destination (file under MCP_WORKSPACE_ROOT). This distinguishes it from siblings like audit_page and audit_site, which produce results, and other tools that check or validate.

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?

Description implies usage after running audit_page or audit_site by mentioning 'Render an audit_page or audit_site result'. It provides clear context for when to use (to save a report as a file), but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives.

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