run_audit_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It vaguely mentions 'comprehensive audit mode' but doesn't explain what the tool does behaviorally—e.g., whether it runs multiple audits, modifies system state, requires specific conditions, or has side effects like logging. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, as it leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 concise with a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the core action ('Run comprehensive audit mode') but fails to provide essential details, making it feel incomplete rather than streamlined. While not verbose, it doesn't earn its place by adding sufficient value beyond the tool name.

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 the complexity implied by 'comprehensive audit mode', lack of annotations, no output schema, and rich sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the audit covers, what 'optimization' means, or what the output might be, leaving significant gaps. For a tool that likely performs a non-trivial operation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond the schema, which already fully covers the lack of inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict or need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 'Run comprehensive audit mode for optimization' restates the tool name 'run_audit_mode' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what 'audit mode' entails or what 'optimization' refers to, leaving the purpose vague. Compared to sibling tools like 'run_accessibility_audit' or 'run_performance_audit', it lacks differentiation, failing to clarify if this is a generic audit or something distinct.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'run_accessibility_audit', 'run_performance_audit', and 'run_seo_audit', it's unclear if 'run_audit_mode' is a superset, a different type of audit, or should be used in specific contexts. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage ambiguous.

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