vulnforge_audit_ebpf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It never states that this is a static/read-only analysis (no code executed or deployed), whether content is persisted, what permissions or auth are needed, or anything about side effects; it only enumerates check categories.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource targets front-loaded ahead of the flaw list, and no filler. It is long, but every clause names a concrete audit target rather than padding.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more than it does. It adequately conveys what is audited but omits the return shape, the static-analysis nature, and disambiguation from vulnforge_audit_wasm_ebpf.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description echoes the policy-type names that map to the policyType enum but adds no format, precedence, or override semantics beyond the schema; this is the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameter documentation.

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 (Audits) and precise resources (eBPF C programs, Falco rules, Tetragon TracingPolicies, Seccomp profiles), plus a concrete list of the flaw classes it targets. An agent understands exactly what it inspects, but the description never distinguishes it from the nearby sibling vulnforge_audit_wasm_ebpf, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The sibling set contains audit_container, audit_microsegmentation, and audit_wasm_ebpf, all plausibly adjacent, yet the description offers no routing signal between them.

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