audit_obs_security

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the read-only safety profile is already covered by annotations. The description adds value by elaborating the two execution modes (spec scan vs. full fetch-and-audit) and providing example calls, which clarifies behavior beyond the annotation. It could mention network access or result format, but this is not a significant gap given the annotation.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, breaking down actions, and providing a usage directive. The [SECURITY] prefix and clear examples make it highly scannable with zero fluff.

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 tool has moderate complexity with two actions and four parameters. The description covers the actions, examples, and usage timing comprehensively. It omits return-value details, which could be useful for an audit, but annotations and schema cover safety and parameters, making it sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter understanding by associating spec_content with spec_analysis and package_name with full_audit, and by offering concrete example values. This clarifies the conditional usage of parameters, earning an above-baseline score.

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 'Comprehensive security audit for OBS packages' with specific verb 'audit' and resource 'OBS packages'. It lists two distinct actions (spec_analysis, full_audit) with examples, making its scope unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools like search_obs or install_obs_package.

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?

It provides an explicit directive: 'Always audit OBS packages before installing', establishing a clear when-to-use context tied to the install workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or mention when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of a full 5.

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