full_stack_audit

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: correlation into one report and graceful skipping of missing sections. However, it omits important safety context such as network scanning requiring explicit authorization and potential risks of analyzing untrusted skills. This is a meaningful gap for a security tool, though the schema partially compensates via network_authorized.

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 two well-structured sentences. It front-loads the purpose, enumerates the audit areas in a parallel list, and ends with the graceful-skipping behavior. Every word earns its place, with zero redundancy.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with six optional parameters and an output schema. The description explains the composite nature, auto-skipping, and report generation. It lacks explicit return-value details, but the output schema covers that. The main gap is the missing security authorization caveat, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 each parameter is individually documented. The description adds high-level context ('pass only what you have') but does not enrich individual parameter semantics beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 performs a comprehensive security audit by listing five specific actions (audits MCP config, checks dependencies, analyzes skills, scans network, scans for secrets/PII) and culminates in a single prioritized report. The verb 'audits' plus enumerated sub-audits fully specifies functionality and distinguishes it from the granular sibling tools.

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 provides clear context: use this for a complete security posture in one call, and it gracefully skips sections when inputs are missing. It implicitly suggests partial inputs are acceptable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., saying 'for individual checks use scan_skill'), so it lacks formal alternatives/exclusions.

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