Claude-Profil auditieren

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. It adds value by specifying the exact categories of policy hints checked (npx starts, env secrets, invalid server configurations), giving the agent concrete expectations about the tool's behavior.

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, focused sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and scope without any extraneous information. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it effective for quick scanning.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only audit with one required parameter; the description covers the purpose and key check categories. However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly state the return format, though the mention of 'Policy-Hinweise' gives a hint that the result is a list of findings. Overall, it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including examples and default values, with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Prüft' (audits) with the resource 'aufgelöstes Claude-Profil' and enumerates what it checks: npx starts, env secrets, invalid server configurations. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_profile or list_profiles, which have different operations.

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 a prerequisite by saying 'aufgelöstes Claude-Profil' (resolved profile), suggesting the user should resolve the profile first, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or other ways to audit, but the context of a policy audit is clear enough for an implied usage.

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