full_audit

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it runs all checks, returns a verdict with a deterministic hash, and implies non-destructive scanning. Could be more explicit about idempotency or auth needs, but the listed behaviors are sufficient 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus an example. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical workflow instructions. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return verdict format and workflow steps. It covers the tool's action, output, and post-conditions, making it complete for an audit tool. Lacks detail on output structure beyond verdict, but the sibling tools provide that granularity.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions the path example. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: running all checks (code scan, secrets, dependencies, config, taint, auth) and returning a verdict. It distinguishes itself from individual sibling tools by being the single command for a comprehensive audit.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: use this tool as a single audit command, and if the verdict is FAIL or WARN, follow up with remediation_plan and then verify_remediation. This clarifies the workflow and differentiates from sibling tools that handle individual checks.

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