codapult_guard_auditRun a full architecture guard audit that ignores baseline suppressions and validates contracts to detect drift and rule violations.
Run a full Guard audit, ignoring baseline suppression and validating contracts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | Project path or workspace root. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behaviors — baseline suppression is bypassed and contracts are validated — which is real beyond-schema value, but it omits whether the audit is read-only, whether it writes reports, cost/runtime expectations, and permission needs.
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 dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and then the two behavioral qualifiers that actually differentiate the tool.
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 one-optional-param, no-output-schema tool the description covers what it does and two notable behavior traits, which is close to sufficient. The main remaining gap is routing guidance against the many guard siblings; return-value details are less critical since there is no output schema to lean on, though a hint would help.
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% and the single `root` parameter already documents "Project path or workspace root." The description adds nothing about the parameter, but per the coverage rule the schema baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Run a full Guard audit") plus two distinguishing modifiers: ignoring baseline suppression and validating contracts. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like codapult_guard_check, codapult_guard_verify, or codapult_guard_analyze, so an agent must infer the difference from the modifiers alone.
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?
"Full" audit and "ignoring baseline suppression" imply this is the exhaustive, un-suppressed variant, but the description never states when to pick it over codapult_guard_check or codapult_guard_verify, nor any prerequisites such as an initialized workspace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.