Recheck Audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions launching a new crawl, implying a mutation, but does not disclose potential side effects like data overwriting or the impact on previous audit results. The behavior is somewhat transparent but could benefit from more detail.

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, clear sentence that immediately identifies the tool as a data tool and states its core function. No wasted words.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It could mention what happens to the existing audit data, but the core action is clear. The context of sibling tools is not conflicting.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, stating only that the tool uses the same settings without elaborating on parameter roles.

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 it launches a new crawl on a previously completed audit using the same settings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like DATA_createAdvancedAudit and DATA_createStandardAudit by focusing on rechecking existing 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?

The description implies usage for re-running an audit with the same parameters, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. However, the context of sibling create tools makes it reasonably clear.

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