audit_local_keys

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'Reads ~/Zotero/zotero.sqlite read-only.' It also adds valuable context: the exact error messages that occur, the environment variable override, and the nature of the returned summary. This goes well beyond the 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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries distinct value: problem, symptoms, trigger conditions, file path, override mechanism, and return type. It is longer than a one-liner but that length is justified by the diagnostic context.

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 what, when, where, and what is returned, and the output schema exists to handle return-value details. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'include_items' parameter, which prevents the description from being fully complete for 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?

The schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the meaning of the only parameter, 'include_items.' Although the parameter name hints at whether item keys are included, the description never connects it to the audit scope. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 names a specific verb ('Audit'), a specific resource ('local Zotero SQLite database'), and a precise diagnostic purpose (finding keys with forbidden characters). It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling search/get operations by focusing on key validation rather than retrieval or mutation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the user reports sync errors' or 'proactively after any bulk library operation.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough that an agent can decide when this diagnostic is appropriate.

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