run_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the internal process (consistency, coverage, traceability, risk checks that culminate in a report), but says nothing about side effects, whether output_dir gets written to, permissions, or runtime characteristics — relevant since the presence of an output_dir parameter implies file creation.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the most important fact ('稽核唯一入口'). The prerequisite condition and the internal behavior follow in logical order. Nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so the return-format gap is largely covered, and the description explains the composite audit behavior. But for a tool with no annotations it leaves side-effect and permission questions unanswered, and output_dir's purpose is unaddressed, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains session_id (a session whose requirements and architecture docs are complete), adding real semantics beyond the bare 'string' type. However, output_dir is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 resource+role ('稽核唯一入口' – the sole audit entry point) and enumerates what the audit covers (consistency, coverage, traceability, risk) plus report generation. This differentiates it from the generate_* siblings, which produce artifacts rather than audit them. The purpose is clear without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition: use the session_id of a session where the requirements and architecture documents are already complete. Calling itself the 'sole entry point' implicitly answers the alternative question (there is no other audit tool), though no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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