audit_reassess

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description's 'save a new report' is consistent, adding the useful detail that a new artifact is produced rather than an in-place update. It does not disclose whether prior reports are overwritten, permission requirements, or how cached intelligence is refreshed.

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 states the action, inputs, and outcome with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 needn't be explained, and the operation is simple with one parameter. However, the description omits prerequisite/permission context and any routing advice relative to the many sibling tools, leaving the definition only minimally 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 0% for the single report_id parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It refers to 'a saved inventory' and 'a new report' but never clarifies what report_id identifies or its required format, leaving the parameter's semantics under-specified.

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 states a specific verb and scope: re-evaluate a *saved* inventory against *current cached intelligence* and save a new report. The word 're-evaluate' plus 'saved inventory' distinguishes it from siblings like audit_scan or audit_start, which imply fresh scans, without naming them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The phrase 'saved inventory' weakly implies an existing report is prerequisite, but the agent receives no guidance on choosing this over reports_compare, audit_scan, or intelligence_sync.

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