audit_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, what permissions are needed, or what the verification checks concretely cover.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though the phrase 'delivered layer census' is jargon that reduces immediate clarity.

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?

The tool is structurally simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and no parameter explanation, the description leaves important operational context missing, including what artifacts and census checks are actually verified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single required parameter, run_dir, is undocumented in structured fields. The description only implies that it identifies 'one immutable run' and does not explain the expected path or format.

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 has a clear verb, 'Verify,' and a specific resource, 'one immutable run's artifacts and delivered layer census.' It distinguishes the action from likely siblings like inspect_run, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'Verify'; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as inspect_run or audit_visual_conversion.

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