audit_container_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'security heuristics' without disclosing whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. Fails to inform agent about behavioral traits.

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?

Extremely concise (5 words), but at the cost of missing essential information. Not every sentence earns its place because the single phrase is too vague to be useful.

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 output schema, no annotations, and two parameters undocumented, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand tool behavior or return values.

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%. The description adds no meaning to the two parameters (content, filename). Agent has no guidance on what they represent.

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?

Description is 'Dockerfile / Kubernetes security heuristics.' It indicates the tool evaluates security for container configs but lacks a verb specifying the action. It distinguishes from siblings like audit_infra_security via container focus, but is vague without explicit action.

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 audit_infra_security or evaluate_policy. The description implies it's for container security, but no exclusion or context provided.

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