security_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a report-only audit ("Flags any->any pass rules..."). Beyond the annotations it adds genuine value by naming the four conditions that constitute a finding, so the agent knows what a positive result means.

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 purpose and followed immediately by the enumerated checks. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the list form makes the findings easy to scan.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and safety fully covered by annotations, the description needs only to explain what is audited and what counts as a problem, which it does. The one gap is the unaddressed relationship to `posture_check` and the other `suricata_*` / `firewall_*` siblings.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly conveys that the audit runs against the whole ruleset with no scoping input.

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 ("security review of the ruleset and IDS") and enumerates the exact checks performed, so an agent knows precisely what it audits. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `posture_check`, which plausibly overlaps with this capability.

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 word "Quick" implies this is a lightweight, first-pass check rather than a deep audit, which hints at usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to `posture_check` / `firewall_rules` for deeper investigation, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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