stealth_audit

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 mentions using 'official browser_evaluate' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or modifies the page state. The listed fingerprints give some context, but the lack of behavioral traits beyond the obvious 'evaluate' is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is useful. Zero waste. The structure is ideal for quick scanning.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool evaluates and lists fingerprint categories. However, it does not describe the return value or output format (e.g., boolean, report, list of findings), which is a notable gap for an evaluation tool. The mention of 'uses official browser_evaluate' is helpful but incomplete.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The description adds value by mentioning the underlying tool (browser_evaluate) and the specific fingerprint categories, which is helpful context for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 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 evaluates the current page for common automation fingerprints, listing specific types (webdriver, chrome.*, plugins, WebGL, UA). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from most sibling tools, though stealth_check and stealth_status are related but not explicitly differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stealth_check, captcha_detect, or when to run it. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the name and purpose.

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