route_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavioral traits. It specifies what security issues are detected (admin routes without auth, API routes without authentication, etc.), but doesn't mention output format, whether it's read-only/destructive, permission requirements, or error handling. The description provides some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with specific detection examples. Every element earns its place with zero wasted words, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 security-focused nature and lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what's being audited and what issues are detected. However, for a security audit tool with no structured behavioral annotations, it should ideally mention output format, severity levels, or how results are presented to be more complete.

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 only one parameter ('path'), so the schema already documents it adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Audit Laravel route files') and resource ('routes/web.php, routes/api.php'), with detailed scope ('for security misconfigurations'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on route security rather than general scanning or other 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 usage context (Laravel projects needing security review) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'config_audit' or 'full_audit'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative advantages with sibling tools.

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