config_audit

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

The description mentions auto-desensitization as a behavioral trait, but beyond that it does not disclose what the audit does (e.g., read-only vs. write, output format, auth needs). With no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden and falls short.

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 sentence with no fluff. It is concise and front-loaded, but could include more details without being verbose.

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?

With no output schema and only one parameter, the description should clarify what the agent receives after execution. It mentions desensitization but not the return value or side effects, making it incomplete for proper tool selection.

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% and the schema already describes the parameter. The description adds no new meaning to the parameter, so baseline score of 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 conveys the tool audits a project configuration file with automatic desensitization. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like file_read.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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