aadc.audit_volume_cap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies files, requires permissions, or handles non-compliance. The audit nature implies read-only behavior, but this is not explicitly stated, leaving ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that quickly conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, earning 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?

For a tool with no output schema and standard parameters, the description sufficiently covers the audit purpose. However, it could be more complete by indicating what the tool returns (e.g., a report of violations or success) or how failures are handled. Slight gap given absence of output schema.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (projectRoot and allowlists are self-explanatory).

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 verifies that every audio/video player declares an explicit volume cap, referencing specific standards (1 and 14). It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('audio/video player volume cap'), distinguishing it from sibling audit tools like audit_network_isolation or audit_hardcoded_url.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other audit tools. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or situational context, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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