audit_viewpoints

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only lists the auditing categories without disclosing whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or return behavior, leaving the agent guessing about its operational impact.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous text. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured breakdown.

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 that the tool has one parameter with no schema description, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations, the description is inadequate. It lists what is audited but does not specify input format, output structure, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'xml' parameter beyond its type. The description adds no meaning to the parameter (e.g., whether it is a file path or content), so the agent has insufficient information to use it correctly.

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 audits a file for specific issues: folders with counters, duplicate GUIDs, name/folder conflicts, and total views. It distinguishes from siblings like dedupe_viewpoints or list_folders, but could be more explicit about the 'audit' verb.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dedupe_viewpoints or reconcile_by_name. The description does not provide context for ideal usage scenarios or exclusions.

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