run_security_audit

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It does not mention read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, permissions, or performance impact (e.g., potential long runtime), leaving behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the main action first, then listing coverage areas, and ending with output details. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 an output schema exists, the description appropriately summarizes return values (severity levels, findings, etc.). It covers the tool's purpose, scope, and output adequately, though permissions or runtime estimates are missing.

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 are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as no parameters exist. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, but the absence of parameters allows a higher score for clarity.

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 the tool conducts a comprehensive security audit of the entire BlindOracle system, listing specific components (smart contracts, API endpoints, etc.). It returns a detailed report, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_all_markets or get_system_metrics.

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 description implies usage for comprehensive security auditing but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. No when-not-to-use information is provided.

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