full_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs multiple checks and returns a deterministic hash, but it does not mention potential side effects, performance implications, or required permissions. For a read-heavy tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, dense paragraph with front-loaded key information ('Single command that runs ALL checks'), followed by a list, verdict description, and imperative workflow steps. Every sentence is essential, and there is 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?

Given the complexity (running many checks) and the presence of a format parameter, the description explains what the tool does and the post-processing workflow. However, with no output schema, it could better describe the output structure beyond 'PASS/FAIL/WARN verdict with deterministic hash'. Overall, it is quite complete for a high-level tool.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, except implicitly referencing 'path' in the example. With baseline 3, the description provides no extra parameter semantics.

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 it runs ALL checks, listing specific types (code scan, secret detection, dependency CVEs, etc.), and returns a verdict with hash. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that focus on individual checks, making its comprehensive purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call 'remediation_plan' and 'verify_remediation' based on the verdict, providing a clear workflow. It also gives an example usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for smaller, targeted checks), but the purpose implies it.

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