fingerprint_audit

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden, and it does so explicitly: 'Read-only: it inspects, it does not change anything.' It also discloses the inspection scope (site-observed rather than local) and that it actively flags contradictions, going beyond a minimal side-effect statement.

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 with no filler: the core behavior leads, the detection rationale follows, and the read-only guarantee closes. Every clause earns 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 parameterless read-only tool this is largely complete: an agent knows what to invoke and what to expect conceptually. However, there is no output schema and the description does not characterize the shape of the reported fingerprint or the flagged contradictions, leaving some interpretation to the agent.

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?

The input schema is empty, so there are no parameter meanings to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description still adds context by clarifying the implicit subject ('this browser' and 'a site') even though there are no parameters.

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 first sentence names a specific action ('Report') and a precise resource ('the fingerprint a site actually sees from this browser'), then adds a distinguishing behavior ('flag internal contradictions') that separates it from generic fingerprint or anti-bot tools. This is not a tautology and gives an agent a concrete target.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is valuable: when the exposure is not a single fingerprint value but the inconsistencies across values that trigger bot detection. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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