auth_audit_security

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool audits for vulnerabilities. It does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies files, what kinds of vulnerabilities it checks, what output is produced, or whether the api_key parameter is needed for Pro access. The parenthetical 'Pro feature' hints at a licensing constraint but does not explain the behavioral implications.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The parenthetical 'Pro feature' adds a relevant constraint without bloating the text.

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 is too thin for an audit tool with no annotations and no output schema. It misses important context such as what the audit report looks like, whether it scans dependencies or source files only, whether api_key is strictly required, and whether the operation has side effects. Siblings in the same family are mostly generators, so the audit-specific expectations deserve more elaboration.

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 50%: the directory parameter is documented, but api_key has no schema description and the tool description adds no meaning for either parameter. The description neither explains how 'directory' is used beyond the schema's 'Project directory to audit' nor clarifies when api_key is required and what it is for.

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 identifies a specific action ('Audit existing authentication implementation') and a specific goal ('for vulnerabilities'), which sets it apart from the many siblings that generate or configure auth systems. It does not name an alternative or detail the scope of the audit, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 word 'existing' and the focus on 'authentication implementation' convey that this tool is for auditing current auth code rather than generating or setting up auth, which is the pattern in siblings like auth_generate_jwt or oauth_generate_flow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to an alternative, so it stops short of full guidance.

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