cloak_stealth_audit

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 the exact set of values returned (webdriver flag, plugin count, WebGL vendor/renderer, canvas hash, etc.), which is genuine behavioral content, but it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what session/page state it requires, or whether it mutates anything.

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 tight sentences, with the purpose front-loaded before the field enumeration. The long list of reported signals is dense but each item is informative rather than filler, so it stays efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return surface, and it does so in detail. With zero parameters and no annotations, the only remaining gap is unstated preconditions (active page/session, read-only nature), which keeps it just under a 5.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents or omits a needed argument.

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 action and subject ("Programmatic stealth audit") and then enumerates exactly which signals are reported, so the agent knows precisely what the tool surfaces. It is not distinguished from the sibling cloak_detection_test, which appears to overlap in intent, so it falls short of a 5.

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 "audit" implies a diagnostic use case, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus cloak_detection_test or the cloak_set_* tools. Usage is only inferable from the purpose, with no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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