audit_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the tool performs a 'structural audit' but does not disclose whether it modifies the document, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The behavioral implications are unclear.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It provides no additional details such as output format or intended use, making it minimally viable.

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?

With an existing output schema and a rich set of sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not hint at the output (e.g., a report or list of issues) or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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 only parameter, document_handle, has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain its meaning or usage. The tool's name suggests it acts on a document, but the parameter's role is entirely undocumented.

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 'Run a comprehensive structural audit of the document' is vague; it does not specify what aspects are audited (e.g., style, cross-references, formatting). While it uses a specific verb and resource, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like check_accessibility or generate_change_summary, which also perform audits.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, to check accessibility one should use check_accessibility; to generate a change summary use generate_change_summary. The description offers no context for selection.

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