server_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context: scans many categories, requires SSH, supports various formats and filters. It does not contradict annotations. Minor gap: no mention of potential performance impact or rate limits.

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?

Reasonably concise for the amount of detail, with key info front-loaded. Could be slightly shorter (e.g., combine some filtering details), but still efficient.

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 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: inputs, outputs, formats, filters, comparisons, prerequisites. It is complete for an audit 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?

Schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds extra context beyond schema: auto-selection of server if only one exists, cap of 10 checks for explain, error on threshold failure. This enhances parameter understanding, though the schema already does a fair job.

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 purpose: running a security audit, and specifies the scope (31 categories, 449 checks) and outputs (score, per-category scores, quick wins). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool server_doctor, avoiding redundancy.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: requires SSH access, suggests server_doctor for health trends, explains when to use filters (compliance, category, severity), and describes snapshot compare and threshold features. This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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