buygit_deep_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that companion MCPs not installed surface as `federation_failures[]` with operator hints and that the tool soft-fails per-companion, always returning something agent-actionable. No side effects are hidden.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding value: purpose, contrast with alternatives, behavior on missing MCPs, and assurance of output. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity of a federated audit involving multiple companion MCPs, the description covers key aspects: parallel execution, fallback reporting, and always returning actionable results. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters like `slug_or_url`, `federate_with`, and `timeout_ms`. It briefly mentions federation and soft-fails but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage beyond schema.

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 explicitly states the tool performs a federated audit by spawning companion MCPs (Socket, OpenSSF, TruffleHog) in parallel and combining findings with catalog signals. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only MCP that one-shots a multi-vendor supply-chain check.

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 includes explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for a one-shot multi-vendor supply-chain check, vs. installing and asking four separate MCPs. It also mentions soft-fails per companion, ensuring the agent knows it always returns something actionable.

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