audit_plugins_bulk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Submits in batches of 10 via the job queue, streams results as each audit completes, and prints a summary table' gives concrete behavioral insights. It could add details like error handling or what happens to invalid files, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavioral details (batching/streaming/summary), and usage context. No fluff or redundancy. It is fully front-loaded with the main purpose first.

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 tool's complexity (bulk operation, batching, streaming) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors and outcomes. It doesn't mention potential edge cases like empty directories or error reporting, but it is largely complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.

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% and parameter descriptions are already informative, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only implies that engines affect analysis, which the schema already states. Thus, no extra value from description.

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 'Audit all plugin ZIP files in a local directory', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_plugin and audit_plugin_zip by focusing on bulk auditing of all files in a directory, and the name 'bulk' reinforces this.

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 provides clear context with 'Useful for auditing an entire plugin suite at once', indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for single plugin audits, so it falls just short of a 5.

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