run_audit

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

The description does not add behavioral information beyond what annotations provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description merely states it is an audit tool. It does not clarify side effects or any behavioral traits, so it fails to add value beyond the structured fields.

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, consisting of a single sentence that immediately conveys the category, deprecation status, and recommended alternative. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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?

The description is complete for a deprecated tool: it tells the agent what it does and what to use instead. However, it could mention that the tool still functions for legacy clients, but the context of deprecation is sufficient. Output schema exists but is not referenced.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters. The description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings, but the baseline is 3 since schema already fully documents them. No additional semantic value added.

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 explicitly labels the tool as an audit tool ('[audit]') and clearly states it is deprecated, directing the agent to use 'audit_url' instead. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function and its intended replacement.

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 explicit guidance: only use this tool for legacy clients, and otherwise use 'audit_url'. This is a clear directive on when and when not to use the tool, with a named alternative.

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