Access Control Audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing new: it does not mention SSH authentication requirements, what the audit returns, or that it reaches out to remote_host.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, so it satisfies the conciseness test, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than tight information density.

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 7-parameter remote-host audit with SSH credentials (password_ref, identity_file) and an output schema, the description should say what happens on the remote host and what result is returned. It leaves all of that to the schema and annotations.

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 every parameter has its own description including defaults and allowed values, so the schema carries the full burden. The description contributes zero parameter meaning, which is the baseline-3 case when coverage is high.

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 paraphrases the title: 'Access control audit (tm_security). Security scanning and compliance.' It names no verb-specific scope and never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like tm_security_security_audit, tm_security_compliance_check, or tm_security_vulnerability_scan, which the schema parameters (scope, standard, scan_type) hint this tool subsumes.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing between this tool and the three sibling security tools, and no statement of prerequisites. An agent would have to guess based on the name alone.

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