aadc.audit_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it runs all audits and returns a consolidated result, but does not disclose whether it modifies the project, permission requirements, or performance implications. While not misleading, it lacks details that would help an agent assess risks or side effects.

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 two sentences: one clearly stating functionality, one providing usage guidance. No redundant words, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

While the schema covers parameters and the description states purpose, the tool is an aggregate that runs multiple sub-audits. The output format is only vaguely described as 'consolidated result'. Given no output schema, the description could clarify the structure (e.g., list of individual audit results) to help the agent process the response. Adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (projectRoot as absolute path, allowlists as per-language overrides). No additional semantic clarity from the description.

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 runs every AADC compliance audit and returns a consolidated result, using specific verb 'run' and resource 'AADC compliance audits'. It distinguishes itself from sibling individual audit tools (e.g., aadc.audit_defaults) by being the aggregate version.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'whenever the user asks for a full AADC review of a kids app, or before a store submission.' This provides clear context and implicitly directs users to sibling tools for specific audits.

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