audit_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the tool's behavior: it audits the script and returns a verdict with hook sub-audit and format beats. It also discloses the checks performed. There are no destructive actions or auth requirements to mention, and the output is described, making this appropriately transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each clause adds value. No fluff or repetition of schema fields. The return structure is mentioned efficiently.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, the evaluation criteria, and the return value. It could mention an example or clarify that it doesn't modify the script, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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%: only 'format' has a description. The description adds context for 'format' by mentioning 'format beats for comparison', but does not explicitly map to the parameter. 'script' is self-evident and required, but lacks any schema description. The description partially compensates but could be more explicit about how 'format' influences the audit.

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 it 'Audit a full short-form script' and lists the specific dimensions checked (hook quality, spoken length, single-CTA rule, hype vs receipts, zero-numbers check). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'audit_hook' by emphasizing 'full script' and the included hook sub-audit.

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 context is implied: it's for full-script audits, with format comparison. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like 'audit_hook' or 'get_script_structure', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not explicit.

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