k8s_security_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Audit' implies a read-only analysis, but the description does not state whether it requires an API key, performs external scans, modifies anything, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The '(Pro)' suffix adds a minor tier hint but is not harmful. Overall it is appropriately sized and scannable.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior, return format, or variations such as strict_mode. It does not address prerequisites, output structure, or how this audit differs from related security scanning tools.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only contextualizing the overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a clear verb ('Audit'), a specific resource ('Kubernetes manifest'), and the intent ('security best practices'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like iac_scan_k8s.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iac_scan_k8s or container_audit_dockerfile. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or a preferred context, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name and generic intent.

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