server_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: scanning categories, returning scores, supporting multiple formats, and requiring SSH access. It does not contradict annotations and extends transparency beyond structured fields.

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 paragraph that is front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists features concisely. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be improved with bullet points for readability. Still efficient overall.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description covers all major aspects: security audit scope, output formats, filtering options, snapshot/compare, threshold gate, profile filtering, and prerequisite (SSH). It also references a sibling tool for health trends, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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% and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The description lists many features but does not add significant new meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Run a security audit on a server' which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool server_doctor by directing users to that tool for health trends, thus providing clear purpose differentiation.

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 mentions 'Requires SSH access' as a prerequisite and explicitly points to server_doctor for alternative use case ('For health trends use server_doctor instead'). It does not provide explicit exclusions for other scenarios but gives sufficient context for when to use this tool.

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