audit_reference_export

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 real behavioral traits: no scripts/message text/authors/copied implementations are returned, and community-only APIs remain unverified. That is useful privacy and reliability context, but it never says what the audit actually computes, what permissions are needed, or how 'directory' is interpreted.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the constraint/context follows. Efficient, though the two halves could be integrated for slightly less repetition.

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 explained, and the privacy caveat is covered. Still, for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the description omits the audit's criteria and the expected directory structure, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 required parameter 'directory' has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does not compensate. The description says nothing about what the directory must contain or how the export is laid out, leaving the one input field effectively undocumented.

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 (audit) and resource (structured community script export) plus a scope qualifier ('aggregate API and mechanic signals only'). It is distinguishable from the validate_* siblings, though the description never names how it differs from 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?

'Use for user-provided reference datasets' gives an implied trigger condition, which is more than nothing. However, there is no when-not guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. export must already exist on disk), and no routing to sibling tools like validate_script.

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