audit_trust_surface

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only and analyzes public-facing metadata files, which is transparent. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or specific file access patterns, which would improve transparency.

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 and well-structured, using paragraphs and bullet points to present purpose, parameters, and return type without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool has only two parameters and an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and return type. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Despite the input schema having no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description provides complete semantic explanations for both parameters, including the workspace path requirement and the enumerations for target. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 audits a project for missing proof links, legacy names, and trust gaps, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_workspace that likely perform broader analysis.

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 the tool is for auditing trust surfaces, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion context. The sibling tools list offers some differentiation, but no direct guidance.

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