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 only states 'Run comprehensive audit mode for optimization', which does not reveal any behavioral traits such as what the audit entails, whether it's read-only or destructive, what permissions are needed, or how results are returned. This leaves critical operational details 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 a single phrase, 'Run comprehensive audit mode for optimization', which is concise but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks the detail needed to be truly helpful, making it more of a placeholder than an informative description. It is front-loaded but insufficient in content.

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' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the audit covers, what it returns, or how it differs from other audit tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context with its siblings.

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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately does not mention any. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool, though it does not compensate for other gaps.

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' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'run_audit_mode' with the added term 'optimization' without specifying what is being audited or optimized. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from sibling audit tools like 'run_accessibility_audit' or 'run_performance_audit', leaving the purpose ambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of multiple sibling audit tools (e.g., 'run_accessibility_audit', 'run_performance_audit'), the description fails to indicate what makes this 'comprehensive audit mode' different or when it should be chosen over more specific audits, offering no context or exclusions.

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