system_audit

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly states 'read-only' and that no updates are installed (implying via checkLatest). However it does not disclose duration, side effects on discovery scope, or why coverage.untracked matters beyond its existence. Adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the main verb+scope, followed by a useful behavioral note. No filler, though the coverage.untracked sentence assumes context not otherwise introduced.

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 read-only audit with one boolean parameter and no output schema, most runtime detail is absent. Whether failures abort or are reported, expected output shape, and safety guarantees are all unstated. Adequate but leaves gaps for a diagnostic tool.

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 schema already documents checkLatest and its default and effect. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (audit) and resource (Agent VM maintenance: tools, update sources, services, APT, dependency drift). Clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings (exec, process_start, apply_patch). Lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools but the scope is unique enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Implies usage when a proactive read-only health check is needed, but never states when to use it vs alternatives or prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives named, so the agent must infer context.

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