Run the compliance & security audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a write operation (compliance/AUDIT_REPORT.md) and the nature of findings (severity-ranked, with remediations). It also states it's a 'static scan,' implying no network or destructive side effects.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence lists what is scanned, the second states the output. Information is front-loaded and each sentence 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the scan scope and output file. Missing details about prerequisites, report overwrite behavior, or network requirements, but overall adequate for the simple tool.

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?

Only one parameter (project_dir) with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'project' but does not explicitly define the parameter format or semantics (e.g., absolute/relative path). It adds some implicit meaning but not enough for full clarity.

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 performs a static scan for security liabilities and writes a report. It lists specific issues checked (committed credentials, plaintext endpoints, etc.), differentiating it from sibling tools like generate_compliance_docs or scan_extension_marketplace.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, generate_compliance_docs might be related but no distinction provided. The description implies it's for scanning a project, but lacks exclusions or contextual usage advice.

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