aadc.audit_launchurl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It states the purpose but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, error conditions, or return behavior. For an audit tool, these are important contextual hints.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and standards. No fluff, front-loaded with key action ('audit') and resource ('Dart launchUrl() calls').

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?

Description explains the audit target and constraints but does not describe the output format (e.g., list of violations, pass/fail). No output schema exists, so the description should provide some expectation of results. References to standards 11 and 14 are unelaborated.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 audits Dart launchUrl() calls for safe-link helper usage and external browser path restrictions. It references specific standards (11 and 14), distinguishing it from sibling audit tools by specifying a focused scope.

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 implies the tool is used when auditing launchUrl calls for compliance with standards 11 and 14, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like aadc.audit_all or aadc.audit_hardcoded_url. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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