aggregate_audit_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions grouping and summary statistics but omits key behaviors: what happens if results array is empty, how grouping handles ambiguity, or the exact structure of the output. Insufficient for a no-annotation tool.

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 concise sentences conveying core functionality. No redundant phrases, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place.

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 basic purpose and options but lacks details on return format, edge cases, or examples. Given no output schema and multiple sibling tools, more completeness is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the grouping options and summary inclusion but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. No extra value or clarification for parameter constraints.

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 the verb 'combine and aggregate', the resource 'audit results', and specific actions: grouping by URL/category/rule/none and providing summary statistics. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'filter_issues' or 'audit_url'.

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 usage after conducting multiple audits to combine results, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., filter_issues, get_statistics). No exclusions or context about prerequisites are provided.

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