toxic_flow_auditor__explain_trifecta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a pure informational read with no side effects, but never says so explicitly, nor whether the explanation is static reference text or derived from configuration. For a zero-parameter tool the risk is low, but the disclosure is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or restated metadata. Every word carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth, and it does not say what the agent receives (prose explanation, structured findings, pattern identifiers) or how the result relates to audit_catalog and list_patterns. Adequate to identify the tool, insufficient to set expectations for its result.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading hints about inputs are given.

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 and resource ('explain the lethal trifecta / toxic-flow model') and scopes it to 'this auditor', which clearly separates it from the sibling scan_* and list_patterns tools in the same family. An agent can tell this is a documentation/explanation tool rather than a scanner without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer it should call this before or alongside scans to understand what the auditor detects. There is no explicit 'call this when...' statement, no mention of list_patterns or audit_catalog as related alternatives, and no note on whether it must precede a scan.

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