Audit WAAS profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose key behaviors: it returns specific diagnostic arrays, accepts optional inputs, and requires login. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only/non-mutating, nor does it mention other potential side effects, limits, or error conditions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output, then details optional inputs and a prerequisite. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (gaps[], wrong_dates[], etc.) and inputs, and flags the login requirement. It could be more complete by specifying what 'share/skills notes' contains or what triggers 'wrong_dates', but it already gives enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly with optional parameters.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description restates their purpose ('source_paths (resume/checklist markdown)', 'expect[] names for gap detection') but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. This is the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Diagnose') and resource ('profile entries'), and clearly distinguishes this audit tool from siblings like waas_get_profile, waas_update_profile, and waas_draft_profile by focusing on diagnostic output (gaps, wrong dates, etc.). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs.

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 through context: it is for diagnosing profile issues, optionally using source_paths and expect[]. It states a prerequisite ('Requires login'). However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over waas_preview_profile or waas_get_profile, and it lacks clear exclusions or alternative routing.

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