audit.run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'run', implying mutation but not confirming it. No details on side effects, permissions, errors, or state changes are given, leaving the agent uninformed about behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient, but it omits essential information that would be needed for the agent, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is drastically incomplete. The agent lacks guidance on parameter semantics, pipeline behavior, and expected outcomes, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the 9 parameters. Parameter names like 'model', 'tasks', 'runDir' are self-explanatory to some extent, but without any explanation of their roles or dependencies, the agent cannot use them correctly.

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 runs an audit pipeline involving TaskCard, runDir, collector, and EvidenceBundle, distinguishing it from sibling audit tools like collect or prepare which are more specific. However, it lacks specifics on what 'run' exactly produces.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit.collect, audit.prepare) or when not to use it. The agent receives no context for tool selection.

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