audit_suid_world_writable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the core action (find files), it does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, how results are returned (despite an output schema existing), or any side effects. A 2 reflects the minimal behavioral context added beyond the bare action.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. Every word contributes meaning: verb, object, scope, and defaults. It is optimally concise for its information content.

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 low parameter count, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple file-finding tool. It lacks details on invocation permissions, result format, or performance impact, but the output schema likely fills some gaps. The completeness is middle-tier because the description covers the 'what' and 'where' but not the 'how' or 'what else'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by specifying the default paths (`/usr /etc /opt /home`), which are not present in the schema. It also clarifies that `paths` is the search location. However, it does not explain the parameter's array nature or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 action ('Find') and specific resource ('SUID and world-writable files'), along with scope ('under `paths` (default /usr /etc /opt /home) on this local host'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_listening_ports (network ports) and audit_pacman_packages (package integrity).

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check_scope, nmap_scan, or other audit tools). The phrase 'on this local host' hints at a local-only scope, but there is no explanation of prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools for remote or different privilege scenarios.

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