argus_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it runs a 'QA pass' and returns JSON, but does not indicate whether it is read-only, modifies anything, requires authentication, has side effects, or any constraints. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and output. Every word serves a purpose; there is no extraneous text.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description falls short. It lacks details on the nature of findings, error handling, performance guarantees, or how to interpret results. For a two-parameter tool, this is insufficient for confident use.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, fitting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Run a quick (cheap) QA pass on a URL' and the output format 'Returns findings as JSON.' The qualifier 'quick (cheap)' effectively distinguishes it from the sibling 'argus_audit_full' without needing explicit mention.

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 implies use for a lightweight audit, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the full alternative or when to avoid it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, relying on the name and 'quick' hint alone.

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