Guard Governance Audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait beyond the schema: the output is declared metadata only and does not establish identity or cryptographic signatures, which sets the right expectations about result trustworthiness. It omits whether the operation is read-only, whether it can fail on missing config, and what the report contains.

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 audited scope and closed with the key caveat. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the shape of the report (sections, pass/fail verdicts) so an agent knows what it will receive. The trust caveat is valuable, but return-value expectations remain underspecified.

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?

There is a single optional parameter ('root') whose schema description already covers it at 100%, so the schema does the work. The description never mentions the root or what happens when it is omitted, but the high coverage makes baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb 'Audit' is paired with a specific scope (proposal/approval provenance, policy bindings, verification reachability), which is more than a restatement of the title. However, the sibling list contains both codapult_guard_audit and codapult_guard_verify/codapult_guard_check, and nothing in the description explains how 'governance' audit differs from plain audit. An agent cannot reliably choose between them from this text 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no named alternative. The second sentence is a scope disclaimer about what the results mean, not an instruction about when to pick this tool over codapult_guard_audit or codapult_guard_verify.

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