audit_the_audits

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the tool corrupts only a temporary copy, never the real store, and it explains the meaning of each output status, especially the subtle SUMMARY_HIDES_DETAIL and CONTROL_FAILED cases. The real-world example further clarifies expected findings.

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 longer than average, but each section earns its place: the core question, the method, the key status semantics, and an illustrative result. It is reasonably front-loaded with the central purpose, though some rhetorical phrasing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 no input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the critical context: safety, mechanism, result interpretation, and real-world findings. It does not explicitly enumerate exactly which sibling surfaces are probed or provide the precise return structure, but for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool the description is largely sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none to add; it implicitly indicates the tool operates against the current store state. This is appropriate and complete for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific action: it 'corrupts a temporary COPY' and reports NOTICED / MISSED / SUMMARY_HIDES_DETAIL / CONTROL_FAILED per probe. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling check/verify/audit tools by posing a meta-question: 'would this check have noticed if the thing it guards against had happened?' This makes its unique purpose immediately understandable.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with every verify_*/check_*/*_audit sibling: those answer questions about data, while this one tests whether those checks can fail. This gives a clear when-to-use signal. It does not explicitly say 'do not use this to inspect data directly,' but the implication is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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