audit_visual_conversion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the audit is read-only or mutating, what permissions are needed, whether files are created or modified, or what side effects occur. The only clue is the word 'audit', which loosely implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and to the point, though its terseness contributes to other gaps rather than being a problem in itself.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 3 required parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide some semantic context for those parameters. It also omits behavioral details and usage alternatives. Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations), the description is insufficient.

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 schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameter names or meaning. Without schema explanations, the agent must guess the purpose of 'source_run', 'run_dir', 'output_dir', and 'partition'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'audit' and a resource 'source-bound geometry, fields and labels', but the phrase 'canonical visual audit' is vague and does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'audit_run' or explain what a 'visual audit' entails. An agent can infer it audits visual aspects but cannot confidently differentiate it from other audit tools.

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 such as 'audit_run', 'inspect_run', or 'validate_project'. It also lacks any prerequisites or conditions. There is no explicit or implied usage context beyond the general term 'audit'.

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