audit_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes the return format (findings JSON), live probe confirmation, and caching behavior. However, it does not specify if the scan is read-only, any required permissions, or potential impacts, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds key behavioral details (return format and caching). No unnecessary words, well-suited for quick reading.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose and caching but lacks details on the findings JSON structure, the meaning of 'active-probe confirmation', or how the cached result is used by other tools. There is room for improvement in explaining the output.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by indicating that 'endpoint', 'project', and 'key' are optional if corresponding env vars are set. This is helpful but does not substantially expand meaning beyond 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 tool's purpose: scanning Appwrite projects for over-permissive permissions. It uses specific verbs and resources ('scan', 'Appwrite project', 'over-permissive collection/document permissions') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_findings' and 'preview_fix' by being the initial scanning step.

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 context by mentioning caching for other tools, suggesting this is a preparatory step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_findings' or 'preview_fix', nor does it provide conditions for not using it.

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