tenant_leak_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the description need not restate safety. However, the description adds no behavioral traits beyond the annotation scope; it only describes scope of audit. It does not mention potential performance impact, permission requirements, or side effects like advisory acknowledgement. Scores 3 because annotations cover safety but description adds minimal behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads 'Operator tool for tenant-boundary review' and efficiently specifies the audit targets. Every word adds value; no fluff. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Despite having six parameters and an output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain the required acknowledgeAdvisory parameter, nor the optional parameters, nor when to invoke this tool. The agent is left uninformed about inputs, outputs, and context. Completeness is low.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, requiring the description to explain parameters. The description fails to mention any of the six parameters (projectId, projectRef, acknowledgeAdvisory, freshen, includeFullResults, maxPerSection). No parameter purpose is indicated, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set them.

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 uses a specific verb ('audit') and clearly specifies the resources audited: tenant-keyed tables, RLS posture, and RPC/code touch points. It explicitly distinguishes itself from generic security-score tools by stating 'without making generic security-score claims'. This clearly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings like db_rls.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'Operator tool for tenant-boundary review' suggests a niche but does not include when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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