audit_lifecycle

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the scope of the audit (what issues it checks) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, if it requires special permissions, or whether it has side effects. The term 'Audits' implies non-modifying behavior, but this is not made explicit.

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 with a clear verb and resource. It lists specific issue categories without fluff, making every word informative and the structure highly concise.

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?

The description covers the core purpose but omits information about expected outputs or behavior beyond the audit categories. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete by mentioning the result format or any side effects, but it remains adequate for the tool's main intent.

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 input schema descriptions already cover 100% of the parameters, providing clear explanations for side, query, offset, and max_scripts. The tool description adds no additional context about these parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Audits') and resource ('live scripts'), enumerating precise audit categories (unowned connections, uncancellable threads, unbounded yields, stale references, missing cleanup). This distinguishes it from sibling audit tools like audit_performance and audit_data_integrity.

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 implies usage for lifecycle-related audits but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mentions of alternatives. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, so an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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