audit_security

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool performs an audit and returns compliance checks, scoring, and a checklist, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it makes external calls, or what side effects might occur. The word 'audit' implies non-destructive analysis, but this is not stated directly.

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 two focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then quickly enumerates the compliance standards and deliverable outputs. Every sentence 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 tool with four schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what is audited, against which standards, and what kind of results to expect. It stops short of describing exact report formatting or how optional flags like has_auth and has_payment affect the audit, but those are relatively minor gaps.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters well. The description does not add much parameter-level detail, but it provides useful context by tying stack_tech_ids and project_type to a security audit. This is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 verb (Audit), the resource (security of a tech stack), and the framework (OWASP Top 10). It also specifies outputs like compliance checks, scoring, and an actionable checklist, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that focus on scalability, performance, or architecture.

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 provides a clear use case: security auditing and compliance assessment of a tech stack. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select this tool over performance, scalability, or planning siblings.

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