audit_target

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description usefully reconciles the non-read-only hint by stating it writes a local snapshot while making no target configuration changes, but it omits other behavioral details such as where the snapshot lands, how long collection takes, or permission requirements.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences; the core action comes first and the scoping caveat second. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a tool whose whole job is producing a saved artifact, the description omits where the snapshot is stored and what target_id must match, leaving moderate gaps given the 0%-coverage schema.

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 single parameter target_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for it and says nothing about what a target id is or how to obtain one (e.g., via list_targets). The phrase 'target configuration changes' only obliquely hints that target_id refers to a managed host.

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 names a specific verb pair (collect, save) and concrete resources (read-only Linux evidence, local audit snapshot), so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_report_context or compare_audits, which also deal with audit data.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the evidence-collection step versus compare_audits or create_hardening_plan, and there is no mention of prerequisites such as a valid target existing.

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