audit_crypto_usage

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

No annotations provided, but description is adequate for a read-only scan tool. It doesn't explicitly state non-destructive or safe behavior, but the scanning nature is clear.

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?

Concise two-paragraph description with no wasted words. Clearly separates purpose, detection list, arguments, and returns.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers scope, parameters, and return format adequately.

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 Args section explains both parameters, adding default values and purpose beyond the sparse schema. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 it scans for cryptographic security issues and lists specific detections. It distinguishes itself from some siblings (e.g., compliance tools) but doesn't explicitly contrast with all related tools.

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 usage by listing detections but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Users must infer from context.

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