aadc.audit_sdks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool audits for specific SDKs and outside allowlist, but does not disclose whether it modifies files, what happens on success/failure, or other behaviors like output format or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the main action, target files, and what it audits for. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every part is informative with no 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 the tool has 2 parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and what it checks, but lacks details on output format, how the allowlist parameter works, and how it integrates with sibling tools. It is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 meaning beyond the parameter names and schema descriptions. It does not explain how allowlists work or provide examples, so it adds no extra value over the schema.

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 verb 'Audit' and the specific resource 'dependency manifests (pubspec.yaml, package.json, requirements.txt)'. It further specifies what it audits for: analytics/advertising/tracking SDKs or any dependency outside the allowlist, distinguishing it from sibling audit tools by its focus on SDKs and allowlists.

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 usage for auditing SDK dependencies against allowlists, referencing Standards 5,9,12,13, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aadc.audit_all or aadc.audit_defaults. There is no guidance on when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed.

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