security_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Audit' implies a read-only inspection and it lists the evidence categories examined, which adds useful behavioral scope, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, permissions, or side effects.

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?

One tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 explained, but the description omits usage context and parameter semantics for a two-parameter security tool. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly in a broader toolkit.

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 0% for two parameters, yet the description adds no meaning for 'limit' or 'trace_id'. It does not explain default behavior, filtering, or how these parameters shape the audit.

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?

States a specific verb ('Audit') and enumerates the resources audited (caller identity, tenant, server provenance, risk, approval evidence for tool calls). Clear enough to distinguish from generic tools, but it does not differentiate from the related sibling 'approval_log' or others.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as approval_log or failure_report. It describes what is audited but not the investigative context or exclusions that would tell an agent when this is the right call.

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