Get Audit Graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe/read-only. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the artifact is returned 'unchanged' and that the tool performs no repository scanning, which clarifies its non-side-effect behavior and scope.

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, followed by a clear exclusion/alternative. Every word earns its place; no redundant filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage boundary, and behavior. No output schema exists, but saying the artifact is returned unchanged is sufficient. Sibling context confirms differentiation.

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% (the 'audit' parameter is described as 'An audit/v1 artifact.'). The description repeats 'audit/v1 artifact' and adds 'existing' but doesn't meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 function: 'Validate and return an existing audit/v1 artifact unchanged.' It uses a specific verb ('validate and return') and resource ('audit/v1 artifact'), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not scan a repository, unlike audit_repo or analyze_repository.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use audit_repo or analyze_repository for repository discovery.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and names the alternatives, making usage boundaries clear.

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