audit_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is non-destructive, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects such as performance, rate limits, or what happens if the limit parameter is omitted.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key verb and resource, then enumerates the payload components succinctly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on return format, pagination, or how the limit parameter interacts with the payload. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 description does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all, despite 0% schema coverage. While it lists components of the payload, it fails to clarify how the parameter affects the output, leaving the agent to infer its purpose.

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 the tool generates a non-destructive audit payload encompassing config, session, report, candidates, dry-run metrics, and safety metadata. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('audit payload'), and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects like cleanup or discovery.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context on prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without answering 'when' or 'why not'.

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