Audit findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only lists output categories. It does not state that the tool is read-only, that it caches by default, or what kind of report it produces, all of which matter for an audit tool.

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 text is compact and free of filler, but it is a bare noun phrase followed by a colon and a list rather than a well-formed sentence. It is concise in word count, not in communicative structure, and the telegraphic style hurts clarity.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the return value, the effect of format and severity parameters, or how this tool relates to siblings. The schema documents parameters, but the surrounding usage context is missing.

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 documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat them. The description also adds no extra meaning about root, format, refresh, or severity beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 identifies a concrete subject area—over-build and access-control gaps—and enumerates specific finding categories such as unprotected writes and orphan entities, so it is not a tautology. However, it contains no verb and never explicitly says the tool audits, finds, or reports these issues; an agent must infer the action from 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like scan_project and extract_access_control, the description does not help an agent decide between auditing for gaps and simply extracting access-control definitions.

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