report_full_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the types of checks run and the combined report, but does not mention side effects, permissions, error handling, or performance implications for a complex orchestrator 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?

The description is concise, using two sentences to convey the tool's purpose and scope. It is front-loaded with the key information, though the first sentence is somewhat lengthy.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description describes the tool's function and output adequately. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance, and specific output format (despite param coverage), leaving some gaps for a complex orchestrator.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states it is an 'Orchestrator tool' that runs all applicable checks (static analysis, config audit, dependency audit, optional runtime inspection) and generates a combined report. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are individual checks.

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 use when a comprehensive audit is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus running individual checks. It lacks 'when not to use' guidance and prerequisites.

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