vulnforge_audit_kms_hsm

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and the phrase 'automated patch synthesis and canary verification' is genuinely ambiguous for an audit tool — it is unclear whether invoking it mutates anything or merely proposes findings. No mention of required permissions, side effects, or severity reporting.

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 front-loaded sentence with the purpose stated first. The CWE enumeration is dense but does communicate scope; nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

Six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations mean the description must explain what comes back, but it never describes the findings format, severity, or whether patch artifacts are returned. The patch-synthesis claim raises a question the description never answers.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter is individually documented, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies; notably it never explains the interaction between content/filePath or how requireTenantAad and enforceHsmAttestation change results.

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?

Names a specific verb (Audits) and a precise resource domain (multi-tenant KMS key derivation, cloud KMS lifecycles, HSM remote attestation) with named CWE coverage. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as vulnforge_audit_iam or vulnforge_audit_vault, though it never explicitly says so.

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 statement of when to choose this over vulnforge_audit_vault, vulnforge_audit_pqc, or vulnforge_full_scan, and no preconditions (e.g., whether a config file or raw content must be supplied first). Usage is only inferable from the format enum in the schema.

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