config_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'audit' and 'risky' settings, implying a read-only analysis without mutations, but doesn't specify output format, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a security-focused tool, this is a significant gap in transparency about what the audit entails and how results are presented.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose (audit risky settings) and lists specific configurations to check. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of security auditing and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'risky' settings, how findings are reported, or what the agent should expect as a result. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its operation and outcomes.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'path' documented in the schema as 'Absolute path of the target Laravel project'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the path should point to a Laravel project for config auditing. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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 audits specific Laravel configuration settings (APP_DEBUG, APP_ENV, APP_KEY, SESSION_SECURE_COOKIE, CORS wildcard origins) for risk assessment. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'dependency_audit' or 'code_scan' by focusing on environment/config auditing rather than code or dependencies. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the verb 'audit' in relation to the resource 'configuration settings' beyond the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'full_audit' (which might include config auditing) or other siblings. It implies usage for Laravel projects with configuration concerns but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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