swiss_cheese_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is an analysis ('analyze layered defenses'), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, access requirements, or whether it modifies state. More transparency would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise, with only a few sentences covering trigger, model, and arguments. It is front-loaded with the trigger and structured with clear argument labels, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides sufficient context for when and how to use the tool, though it could mention any prerequisites or postconditions for completeness.

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 description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters beyond the schema's bare names and types. It clarifies the 'change_description' parameter and describes 'layers' as optional with a default of 'standard 6-layer defense', though the schema default is an empty string, which could cause slight confusion.

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 purpose: analyzing layered defenses (Swiss Cheese Model) when making changes to critical paths like auth, payments, or data destruction. It provides a specific trigger and distinguishes itself from siblings by its specialized safety focus.

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 explicitly triggers usage for changes to critical paths, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, leaving some room for ambiguity in comparison to similar audit tools.

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