full_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 clearly states the tool runs audits in parallel and returns a consolidated report, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention execution time, resource requirements, error handling, or whether it modifies the target project, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first specifies the action and audits performed, and the second describes the output. Every word contributes essential information with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (running multiple audits) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does a good job explaining what it does and what it returns. However, it could be more complete by detailing the report structure or potential side effects, which would help an agent understand the full context better.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'path' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples of valid paths or constraints), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Run all static audits in parallel') and enumerates the exact types of audits performed (dependency CVE check, environment config, PHP code scan, Blade XSS scan, route/middleware audit). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being comprehensive rather than focused on individual audit types.

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 tool should be used when a comprehensive audit is needed, as it runs 'all static audits in parallel.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the individual audit sibling tools (like blade_scan or dependency_audit), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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