audit_code_no_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait of 'without executing code', indicating safety and static analysis. However, it lacks details on limitations, required permissions, or side effects beyond that.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. Every word is meaningful with no wasted content.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to explain returns), the tool has three optional parameters with no descriptions either in schema or description. The description fails to specify how to use the tool (what source or path to provide), leaving the agent uninformed.

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 the description does not mention any of the three parameters (source, allowlist, code_path). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which itself lacks descriptions. The agent has no guidance on what to input.

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 the tool performs static AST analysis of Python source to flag network imports/calls without execution. It uses specific verbs ('analyze', 'flag') and resource ('Python source'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_dockerfile_security and bias_fairness_scan.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. The purpose is clear but usage context is absent.

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