Audit for credentials

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that values are never reported, findings are placed in the search index, and removal requires crbro_forget followed by credential rotation. This adds substantial behavioral context that structured annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: what is scanned, what is reported, how findings surface, when to run it, and how to remediate. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids vague filler.

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?

For a no-parameter audit tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers scope, output behavior, security implications, timing, and remediation. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 and the input schema is fully covered by that fact, so there is little for the description to add. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate and no clarification is needed.

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 specific verb and resource: a read-only scan of every neuron field and session log for stored credentials. It also differentiates itself from crbro_inspect by explicitly noting that crbro_inspect shows content while this tool only judges it.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: run after upgrading and whenever a secret may have been pasted. It also names the relevant alternative (crbro_inspect) and the follow-up remediation tool (crbro_forget), making the decision boundary clear.

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