task_audit

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is 'advisory-only', 'risk-proportional', does not block lifecycle actions, and stays read-only. It also explains the kind of evidence produced at different risk levels, which is useful and not contradicted by annotations.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: purpose, exclusions, usage timing, skip condition, and read-only status. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the parenthetical adds necessary detail without being bloated.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output type, usage timing, limitations, and safety profile. It explains what evidence is produced at different risk levels, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the only parameter ('json') is already described in the schema as returning structured JSON instead of formatted text. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed because the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Audit the current Task Passport for continuity risks.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating what it does not do ('does not judge semantic correctness or block lifecycle actions'), so an agent can separate it from tools like release_preflight or task_update_verification.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions: 'Call before finalizing, after a long gap, or when drift is suspected.' It also provides a clear skip condition: 'skip when a recent audit already answered it.' This is strong usage guidance even without naming sibling tools.

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