audit_custom_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Audit' suggests a read-only analysis, which is a useful behavioral signal, but the description does not explicitly confirm that it has no side effects, what it returns, or any permissions required. It implies transparency without fully delivering it.

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, well-structured sentence with a clear verb-first structure. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the audit scope but does not mention what the output or result will be. For a tool with no output schema, this missing detail means the description is not fully complete, though it is acceptable for a simple read-oriented tool.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter (tool_id) as 'Tool ID or URL to audit,' giving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter itself; it just mentions aspects of the audit (capabilities, parameters, etc.). This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Audit' and clearly identifies the resource: 'capabilities, parameters, models, and code logic of a Google Flow custom tool.' This distinguishes it from siblings like run_custom_tool or update_custom_tool, which perform different actions on similar resources.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., list_tools or run_custom_tool). The word 'audit' implies an inspection use case, but no concrete context or exclusions are provided, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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