ad_generate_security_audit_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The "[READ]" tag usefully signals a non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about permissions needed, what the audit scans, runtime cost, or what the report contains — and the Portuguese phrasing is inconsistent with the otherwise English tool surface.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the category and [READ] tags are front-loaded. Brevity here is not the problem — under-specification is.

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 report-generation tool with zero required parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin: it omits what the audit evaluates and when it should be chosen. The presence of an output schema covers return-value explanation but not scope or behavior.

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% for two parameters. The description says nothing about output_format (its allowed values beyond the default "json") or correlation_id, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap; only the parameters' intuitive names help.

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 is essentially the tool name restated in Portuguese ("Gerar relatorio de auditoria de seguranca" = "generate security audit report"), with a category tag prefixed. It conveys a verb and resource, but adds no detail about what the audit covers or how it differs from adjacent siblings such as ad_run_compliance_assessment or ad_generate_domain_health_report.

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 use this rather than a sibling report tool (domain health, compliance assessment, group/computer reports). The agent must infer routing purely from the tool name.

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