audit_sql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the specific behavioral focus (checking for missing %e in mysql_format), which is useful. However, it does not state whether the scan is read-only, whether it scans the entire script or only relevant sections, or what the output looks like.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and the specific risk it detects. There is no wasted wording, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the agent should expect in the response (e.g., list of findings, pass/fail status). It also doesn't clarify the boundary between this tool and audit_script, which could cause mis-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%, with the only parameter 'path' described as 'Path to the script file'. The description's phrase 'Scan a script' reinforces this but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 states a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('a script') and narrows the purpose to SQL Injection risks, specifically missing %e in mysql_format. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling audit_script.

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 alternatives like audit_script or audit_performance. The intended use case is implied by the name and description, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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