get_security_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation is read-only, warns it is heavy and scans the filesystem, and notes root is required to see everything. This covers safety, performance, and privilege expectations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and wastes no words. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, behavioral caveats, and when to use it.

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 zero-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's scope, scoring, operational weight, and privilege requirements. No additional return-format explanation is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description still adds useful context about what the audit covers, which enriches the meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 and resource ('Runs a security audit') and enumerates concrete checks (firewall rules, SSH hardening, SUID binaries, etc.), plus a 0-100 score. This clearly distinguishes it from diagnostic siblings like get_audit_logs or get_system_health_check.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use for hardening reviews, ideally during low load.' It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough for selection.

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