infomaniak_audit_kdrive_admin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces this with 'read-only' and adds significant context by enumerating the audit categories. It does not describe return format or failure modes, but with strong annotation coverage this is not a major gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states action and scope, then uses a compact list to enumerate audit areas. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a read-only audit tool with an output schema and two well-documented parameters, the description covers the main behavioral aspects. It could elaborate on what 'posture audit' means or how results are structured, but the enumerated areas and output schema make it sufficiently complete.

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 100% — both drive_id and storage_warning_ratio have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond establishing the audit context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('kDrive admin') and enumerates the audit scope (product health, users, external users, public share links, settings, storage usage, trash count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_audit_account or infomaniak_audit_dns_zones.

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 makes clear this is for kDrive admin posture auditing and lists the covered areas, giving solid context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope is unambiguous given the sibling tool set.

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