gam_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's read-only mode, required OAuth 2.0 authentication, zero credit cost, and the structure of the markdown output report including pass/fail verdict. It also explains it is a wrapper calling three sub-tools.

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 well-organized with labeled sections (MODE, AUTH, CREDITS, OUTPUT, WHEN TO USE) and clear differentiators. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the output (comprehensive markdown report with three sections and verdict). It also explains the tool's role as a convenience wrapper and differentiates it from related tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the default value for the framework parameter ('Defaults to orbiads_baseline if omitted'), which is not in the schema. However, it does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already offers.

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 it runs a full GAM network compliance audit combining hygiene, diagnostics, and standards baseline. It distinguishes itself from siblings audit and audit_skill with explicit 'NOT the same' statements.

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 includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section that advises using this tool for a complete one-shot audit and directs to audit_skill for individual components. It also clarifies the difference from audit.

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