audit_commissioning_script

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that the analysis is rule-based and deterministic ('deterministic physical boundary rules and safety gates'), which is useful, but it never states that the operation is read-only, what the findings/violations look like, whether it is idempotent, or how it handles unsupported or malformed input.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and the audit basis front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of any usage or output guidance.

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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition needs to describe what an audit returns (violations, gate failures, pass/fail summary) and it does not. For a low-complexity tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap about results and error behavior.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only a gloss on the commissioning levels ('IST Level 1-5') that the enum already spells out, and gives no extra guidance on choosing between a specific level and 'ALL'.

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 a specific verb ('Audits') and a clearly bounded resource ('data center commissioning script'), and enumerates the document families it accepts (MOP, SOP, EOP, IST Level 1-5). It does not need to differentiate itself from siblings like verify_hydraulic_boundary or calculate_pipe_friction_loss, since none of them audit scripts, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g., that the script must be raw text of a single procedure), and no mention of alternatives. The named document types imply scope but leave an agent to infer the selection criteria.

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