task_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' More importantly, it adds context about the audit's scope (specific risk categories), going beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 two sentences: the first states the audit's purpose and contents, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word serves a purpose with no 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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, read-only) and the description covers purpose, scope, and usage well. However, it doesn't mention the return/output format, and since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap that prevents a perfect score.

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?

The single parameter 'json' is fully described in the schema ('Return structured JSON instead of formatted text.'). The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 ('Audit') and resource ('current Task Passport') followed by a precise list of what the audit checks (stale/missing sources, branch/head drift, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_status or source_status by focusing on continuity risks.

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?

It explicitly states when to call ('before finalizing, after a long gap, or when drift is suspected') and when to skip ('when a recent audit already answered it'). This provides concrete usage context and an exclusion, though it doesn't name alternative tools.

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