krl_deep_safety_audit

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

No annotations are provided so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the KUKA KRL Professional license requirement and what categories of risk are checked, which is genuinely useful context, but it never states whether the code is only statically analyzed or executed, how long the audit takes, or how findings are surfaced.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the hazard list, then the licensing caveat. No padding or repetition.

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 single-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, most of what an agent needs is present: the scope of checks and the license prerequisite. The notable remaining gap is what comes back (a findings list, severity ratings, pass/fail), which matters since there is no output schema to describe it.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'code: KRL code to audit.' The description adds no format constraints, size limits, or expectations about the input beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — deep safety and motion verification of KUKA KRL code — and enumerates concrete hazard classes (advance run hazards, payload verification, actuator-sensor races, turn unwind). This clearly separates it from krl_lint_snippet and krl_safe_auto_repair, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 word 'deep' implies a heavier-weight counterpart to the lint tool, and the licensing prerequisite is stated. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g., 'use after lint passes' or 'use before deployment') and no when-not-to-use or named alternatives.

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