move_contract_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return of a severity-graded report with root cause analysis and remediation, lists vulnerability types, and states the pricing model. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the behavioral core is well-covered.

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 concise and packed with essential information: purpose, supported platforms, vulnerability types, output format, input options, and pricing. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (security audit with multiple vulnerability types) and the presence of an output schema (so return values are covered), the description provides sufficient context. It could include expected usage notes or prerequisites, but is largely complete.

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 0%. The description mentions two parameters implicitly ('source' and 'github_url' via 'Provide raw Move source code or a GitHub URL') and adds context about their purpose, but does not explicitly describe all three parameters or their formatting requirements.

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 it's a 'Move smart contract security audit' for Aptos and Sui, specifying types of vulnerabilities detected. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'smart_contract_audit' and 'rust_contract_audit' which target other languages.

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 mentions providing source code or a GitHub URL as input, and indicates the cost and output format. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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