prufgate_anti_fabrication

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detection categories, but it does not explain what the output looks like, where findings are reported, or how the scan is scoped beyond the parameters.

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 wasted clauses, and the detection categories are front-loaded. However, the cryptic 'Engine 1:' prefix does not help an agent select the tool, and the fragment lacks a clear action verb.

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 scan tool with eight siblings and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It omits the action performed, expected results, how findings are surfaced, and when this tool should be chosen over the other prufgate engines.

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 description coverage is 100%, and all three parameters are documented in the schema with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable at full schema coverage but earns only the baseline score.

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 identifies the domain as fabricated production logic and lists concrete detection targets (canned fallbacks, simulated return values, stub handlers), which lets an agent infer an anti-fabrication scan. However, it never states the action with a verb such as detect, scan, or report, and it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling prufgate scan tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus prufgate_fast_scan, prufgate_full_scan, prufgate_test_audit, or the other siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context are provided.

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