mhangani_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals key behaviors: authorization is enforced ('CLI refuses'), allow_private defaults to false as a safety guard (implying private addresses are blocked by default), and respect_robots refuses disallowed paths. It does not describe the output format or side effects (e.g., history saving), but the provided behaviors go beyond a generic 'runs an audit.'

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 two-sentence structure is front-loaded with the action and then lists parameter behaviors in a clear, information-dense manner. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 (5 params, authorization prerequisite), the description is complete. It covers the prerequisite, parameter semantics, and safety defaults. An output schema exists, so not describing return values is fine. It provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% (no property descriptions), yet the description explains every parameter: url, timeout (overrides per-check timeout), rate_delay (spaces HTTP requests), allow_private (permits private/internal addresses), and respect_robots (refuses robots.txt-disallowed paths). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Run a web security audit against `url`.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mhangani_report (reports) and mhangani_authorize (authorization management), and the backticked `url` reinforces the primary input.

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?

It explicitly states a prerequisite: the target must be authorized first via mhangani_authorize, and the CLI refuses without it. It also clarifies optional flags (allow_private, timeout, etc.) and their effects, giving clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would push it to a 5.

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