audit_dataset

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

No annotations provided; description mentions output options and file write but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects. Incomplete disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Single sentence with clear enumeration of audit scope and output options. Efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate usage notes).

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?

Despite 5 optional parameters and no output schema, description provides a high-level list of audit contents but lacks specifics on return format structure or error conditions. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds little beyond schema—e.g., notes optionality and defaults already present in schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Run a complete Interaction Studio dataset audit' and lists specific components (configuration, campaigns, segments, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_recipes or get_campaign.

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?

Usage is implied as a comprehensive audit tool, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., individual list/get tools) or when not to use it.

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