eds_audit_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the audit/diff/record cycle, status outcomes (ok/degraded/broken), webhook payload safety ('only public audit data, never secrets'), auth requirement (EDS_DA_TOKEN), and the division of labor between server and caller.

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 compact yet information-dense. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of needed context (schedule, diff, status, history, webhook, safety, server vs. client role, auth, shared options). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words.

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 tool with no output schema and complex scheduled behavior, the description covers the essential operational contract: what it does, what it records, how status crossing works, what the webhook payload contains, prerequisites, and relation to sibling tools. An agent has enough to decide whether to invoke it and how to configure 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context by linking `webhook` to the alert flow ('get pinged when the status crosses `alertOn`') and by warning about payload confidentiality. It also groups audit options under 'Same audit options as eds_audit_site', providing cross-tool semantic continuity.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Watch a site on a schedule') and clearly explains the diff-and-status-report mechanism. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the 'automate it' primitive and referencing shared history with eds_audit_snapshot/eds_audit_trend and same options as eds_audit_site.

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 gives clear when-to-use context ('This is the 'automate it' primitive: the SERVER does the check + alert; you supply the schedule'). It implies alternatives through 'Same audit options as eds_audit_site', but does not explicitly name a one-off alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.