audit_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope and output behavior (0% tolerance, 100% validation, remediation suggestions implying no auto-fix), but never states that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any cost/runtime characteristics.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. Mostly efficient, though 'with 0% tolerance' and 'Validates 100% of source data' restate the same strictness idea.

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 two-optional-parameter audit tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what categories of results it returns (missing, orphaned, duplicates, file paths, remediation). Only the mutation/side-effect question remains open.

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 schema already documents both optional parameters (sources with enum values, max_items with its 0-for-unlimited semantics). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb (audit) and resource (search index) and enumerates the findings it produces: missing items, orphaned entries, duplicates. It is clearly distinct from index-building siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with rebuild_index.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The natural relationship to the sibling rebuild_index (audit detects issues, rebuild fixes them) is left entirely to inference.

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