score_audit_completeness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the condition for completeness (all required fields present and not null), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, side effects, performance, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps.

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 very concise: two sentences that cover purpose and behavior. No wasted words; every piece adds value. The structure front-loads the purpose, then explains the logic.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It explains scoring logic and default fields. However, it omits the output format (e.g., a score per entry or aggregate), which would be helpful for an agent to interpret returns.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially. It clarifies that required_fields defaults to a predefined list when null and defines what constitutes completeness. However, it does not provide details about the audit_log parameter's expected structure, leaving ambiguity.

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's purpose: scoring audit-log completeness for non-repudiation. The verb 'score' and resource 'audit-log completeness' are specific. The context of non-repudiation and the list of default required fields differentiate it from sibling tools like assess_attack_coverage or check_rbac.

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 implies when to use (when assessing completeness for non-repudiation) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It lacks explicit guidance on preferred scenarios compared to siblings.

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