sql_audit_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that this is a 'Pro feature', implying an entitlement or api_key requirement, and that the output is a report. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or mutates the project, what the report's output format or destination is, or whether api_key is mandatory. Minimal added context beyond what the name implies.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the core action precedes the 'Pro feature' caveat. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It loses one point because the information is so spare that structure carries little explanatory weight beyond a headline.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented api_key parameter, the description is thin. An agent cannot tell what the audit report looks like, whether it returns data or writes a file, whether directory must be local or repo-rooted, or how the api_key factors in. Critical invocation details are left unspecified.

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 50%—directory is documented in the schema ('Project directory to audit') while api_key is not. The 'Pro feature' note weakly hints why api_key exists (Pro entitlement), adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the description never explicitly maps api_key to that requirement or clarifies its role, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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 specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('SQL security audit report'), and the qualifier 'comprehensive' signals scope. It distinguishes clearly from siblings like sql_detect_injection or sql_parameterize_queries (which act on queries) and auth_audit_security (which audits auth, not SQL). However, it does not explicitly name any alternative or differentiation criterion.

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?

No usage guidance is provided—no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria relative to the many audit/security siblings (sql_detect_injection, audit_query_builder, k8s_security_audit). The only context is the parenthetical 'Pro feature', which hints at entitlement but not at invocation conditions. An agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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