audit_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes scanning and analysis but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, resource-intensive, or requires specific permissions. The lack of detail on side effects or constraints leaves the agent underinformed.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the main purpose and supported languages. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for languages) to improve scannability.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 4 enums, no output schema or annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output format beyond the parameter, nor the implications of different modes/scopes. The tool's full behavior is not adequately described.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all 6 parameters. The tool description adds marginal value beyond the schema (e.g., mentioning supported languages, but that's already in the schema's 'language' enum). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 performs a complete code security audit with AST parsing, vulnerability detection, and report generation. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'audit_quick_scan' or 'audit_analyze_file', which could lead to confusion about when to use this tool.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its alternatives (e.g., quick scans, per-file analysis, data flow analysis). The description implies a comprehensive scan, but lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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