audit_structured_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Audit structured data' with no information about side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, return format, failure modes, or impact. This is completely insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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 extremely brief (four words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks any substantive detail, making the sentence nearly useless. A concise description should still convey essential information; this one conveys only a vague action and object.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the audit checks, what the return value contains, or how the parameters affect the outcome. This is a high-complexity tool with almost zero supporting context.

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%, and the description does not explain the purpose or expected values of the 'taskId' and 'pathname' parameters. The schema provides only names and types; the description adds no semantic meaning. The agent cannot infer what these parameters control or how they influence the audit.

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 'Audit structured data' essentially restates the tool name 'audit_structured_data' without elaboration. It fails to specify what structured data means, what kind of audit is performed, or what output/results are produced. The description also does not differentiate it from sibling tools like audit_metadata or run_website_audit, making its unique purpose unclear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over related audit tools among the sibling list. An agent would have no basis for selecting this tool over audit_metadata or run_website_audit.

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