audit_code

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

The description discloses the pipeline stages and that it returns a combined report, providing some transparency. However, it is ambiguous whether 'writes fixes' means applying changes to the source code or just reporting suggested fixes, and it does not mention side effects, data handling, or execution mode (synchronous/asynchronous). With no annotations, this gap is significant.

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 concise, with two sentences covering the main functionality and a single-line Args section for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant fluff.

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 covers the primary steps and return value, but it lacks clarity on whether the audit runs synchronously or asynchronously, and whether fixes are applied directly or only reported. The output schema may explain the report structure, but the process details remain underspecified.

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?

Although the schema has no description for the 'code' parameter, the tool description explicitly explains it: 'code: The source code to audit (paste the full code).' This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage for a single parameter, giving clear guidance on what to provide.

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 a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('code') and details the pipeline stages (Bug Hunter, Test Goblin, Code Gremlin), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_code by emphasizing a security audit pipeline with reported outputs.

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 the tool is for security audits and lists the stages, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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