fleet_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that findings carry stable codes and that policy.skip in fleet.yaml mutes them, plus the 'as the nodes run now' baseline posture. However it does not state read-only/safety expectations, auth requirements, or cost/runtime characteristics of such a broad audit.

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?

It is one massive run-on sentence cramming dozens of checks into parenthetical lists. Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the rest is dense enumeration that is hard to scan and would benefit from structure.

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 complex fleet-wide tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope and the muting mechanism reasonably well, but omits what a run returns, how findings are shaped beyond codes, and safety/pacing expectations. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents code, target, and minSeverity with their formats. The description adds a little (e.g., code prefixes relate to findings) but no syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb (audit) and resource (hosts) against a named baseline, and enumerates the concrete checks, which distinguishes it from narrower siblings like host_inspect or tuning_status. It is clear what it does, though the wall-of-text enumeration makes the scope harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

It states what is audited but never says when to reach for this tool versus host_inspect, fleet_status, or the many individual host_* checks, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the scope listing.

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