audit_security

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the read-only nature plus the side effect of optionally writing a report to ~/mikrotik-sites/<site>/. However, it says nothing about required permissions, connection/session prerequisites, runtime cost, or error behavior for a multi-check audit.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a dense enumeration, then the optional save behavior — no filler sentences. The list is long but each item is a distinct audit domain, so it earns its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description thoroughly covers the audit scope. The remaining gap is parameter meaning (name/site) and connection prerequisites, which is minor given the output schema carries the payload structure.

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 0% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'site' selects the save destination path, but the 'name' parameter (defaulting to 'router') and its relationship to session/device selection are never explained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read-only security audit') and enumerates the exact resources inspected (version, users, firewall, DNS resolver, compromise indicators, etc.). The 'read-only' qualifier implicitly separates it from mutating siblings like harden_services, firewall_baseline, and apply_changes, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'read-only audit' and the optional report-saving behavior, but the description never states when to prefer this over collect_info, router_overview, or validate_network, nor when not to use it. No explicit alternative routing is provided.

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