ztds_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether the input text is persisted, what permissions are needed, or whether the operation has any side effects. It does at least signal that a secondary artifact (an attestation receipt) is produced, which hints at a non-trivial return shape.

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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so conciseness itself is fine.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it names the standard and the receipt but doesn't describe what the audit result or receipt contains, nor whether text leaves the session.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds only the compliance framing and does not clarify the text's expected size, encoding, or format.

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+resource pair ('Audit text for PII/secrets exposure') and names the governing standard (ZTDS RFC v1.0). It implies a read-only inspection role distinct from ztds_sanitize/ztds_restore, but never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus ztds_sanitize (which presumably redacts) or ztds_info. The agent must infer that 'audit' means inspect-without-modifying purely from the name.

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