Audit delivery readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about scope ('all loaded QA rules') and the optional ruleset filter, but does not disclose potential runtime costs, connectivity requirements, or behavior when no rules are loaded. Still, it does not contradict annotations.

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 compact sentence delivers the core action, the optional filter, the target, and the result. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name/title.

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 output schema exists, so not describing the exact return structure is acceptable. However, the 'port' parameter is entirely unexplained, and the description assumes an 'open model' without clarifying prerequisites or failure modes. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool but has a clear semantic gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'ruleset' parameter as an optional tag filter, but completely omits the 'port' parameter, leaving its meaning and effect unclear. Given two parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a notable gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and names the exact resource ('all loaded QA rules') against the 'open model', with an explicit optional filter. It also states the return type ('scored verdict'), making its purpose distinct from siblings like run_rule or verify_ifc_export_readiness.

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 when to use it: when a full or ruleset-filtered QA audit is needed against the open model. However, it does not explicitly contrast with run_rule or other QA-related siblings, nor does it state conditions where an alternative would be preferred.

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