prufa_run_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: free, anonymous, idempotent, blocking vs. non-blocking via wait, return types (findings JSON or queued state), and the workspace_unlock restriction for anonymous results. All important traits are covered.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. However, it is dense, which might slightly reduce readability; a minor structure improvement could break it into bullet points.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (findings JSON with grading and queued state), idempotency, free tier, and the workspace unlock block. All pertinent information for an agent to use the tool correctly is present.

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 schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to both parameters: 'url' is clearly the target URL, and 'wait' is explained with its effect on blocking vs. polling. The description clarifies the default value and behavior, which goes beyond the schema's minimal naming.

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 opens with a clear action: 'Run a one-shot public-page QA audit on a URL.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools like prufa_get_report (fetching reports) and prufa_run_flow (running flows).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for a free, no-key-required audit. It also explains when not to rely on it (anonymous limitations lead to deeper checks needing a workspace) and provides an alternative: prufa_setup_workspace. The wait parameter behavior is clearly explained, including polling with prufa_get_report.

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