get_full_audit

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 says 'Get comprehensive audit results' – a simple read operation. No mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, or effects (none). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what's obvious from the name.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words; front-loaded with the action 'Get comprehensive audit results'.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (multiple categories, no output schema), the description does not explain the return format, structure of results, or how categories are combined. An agent must infer that results are collected into a single report, but this is not explicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists categories that already appear in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning or usage details beyond what is already in the input schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves comprehensive audit results across all major categories (performance, accessibility, SEO, best practices, PWA). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like get_performance_summary or get_recommendations.

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 implies this is the comprehensive option via the word 'comprehensive', but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over narrower alternatives (e.g., use this for a full overview, use get_performance_summary for just performance). No exclusions or context provided.

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