impact_full_audit

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not explain what the audit entails, what output it produces, whether it is a multi-step process, or any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'complete' indicates scope, 'positioning audit' is the core action, and 'using all IMPACT phases' adds crucial context.

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's apparent complexity as a 'full audit', the description lacks essential context. There is no output schema, no explanation of return values, and no detail on the audit process itself. The rich schema covers parameters, but the description fails to explain what the user should expect from the tool.

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?

All six parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides adequate details for each field.

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 'complete positioning audit' using all IMPACT phases. It uses a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('positioning'), and the phrase 'using all IMPACT phases' distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual phases.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the individual phase tools (e.g., impact_get_framework, impact_pinpoint_value). It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or specific use cases.

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