check_single_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'run', implying execution but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or whether it's read-only. This is insufficient disclosure for a tool that likely performs an audit.

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 extremely concise with no extraneous information. It frontloads the core action and usage context in just two short sentences, earning its place with zero waste.

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 the tool's simplicity (one enum parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and use case. However, it lacks behavioral details and explicit alternatives, leaving some gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 has 100% coverage with a single enum parameter described as 'Which audit check to run'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 'Run a single audit check by name', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'run_full_audit' which runs all checks, making the purpose precise.

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 phrase 'Useful for targeted investigation' indicates when to use this tool—for a specific check rather than a full audit. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context with sibling 'run_full_audit' provides implied guidance.

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