defensetech_audit_event_check_invariants

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

Discloses return of ok+errors+passed, but no annotations are provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. Missing details on side effects, permissions, read-only status, or behavior on invalid input.

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 single sentence listing three checks, but could be better structured with bullet points for readability. No filler words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, description is incomplete. Lacks details on return format, prerequisites, or what constitutes a valid event object.

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 0% with no description on the 'event' parameter. Description mentions 'single event' but does not describe required fields or structure, failing to compensate for missing schema 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?

Clearly states it runs all three DefenseTech audit-stream invariants against a single event, listing specific regulatory checks (CUI, ITAR, DFARS). Distinguishes from sibling tools like defensetech_check_itar_us_person which run individual checks.

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?

Implies usage for comprehensive compliance check of one event, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., individual check tools). No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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