Generate security audit

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the description's mention of 'unsafe-mode confirmation' adds value by specifying a behavioral guard. However, it does not explain what the audit does or its side effects beyond the confirmation requirement.

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 is concise and front-loaded, but it could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the condition. Overall, 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?

With an output schema present, the agent can infer return values. The description covers the core action and constraint, but lacks details on what the audit report contains or how parameters affect it. Given moderate complexity, it is minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not explain parameters like 'categories' or 'daysAbandonedWorkflow'. The only parameter mentioned implicitly is 'confirmation' via 'unsafe-mode confirmation', leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 requests a security audit report, specifying it requires explicit unsafe-mode confirmation. The verb 'generate' combined with 'security audit' distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on credentials, workflows, and executions.

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 this is a potentially dangerous operation requiring confirmation but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. Given the destructive hint, more guidance would help.

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