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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool runs checks and returns a verdict with a deterministic hash, but does not disclose whether it modifies any state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 at 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes critical workflow instructions. It could be slightly tighter but has no redundant information.

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?

The description explains the tool's role as a comprehensive audit and gives the follow-up workflow. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned verdict (e.g., whether it's a JSON object with sections), which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema.

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 describes all parameters. The description adds an example but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 that this tool runs ALL checks including code scan, secret detection, dependency CVEs, config audit, taint analysis, and auth coverage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_code', 'scan_secrets', and 'audit_config' by being the comprehensive, single-command 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: if verdict is FAIL or WARN, call 'remediation_plan' next and then 'verify_remediation'. It includes an example invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for a quick focused scan) or compare directly to siblings.

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