BotArmor audit report

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description is free to add value — and it does, enumerating the report's internal structure and disclosing that it only yields findings for a completed audit. It omits error behavior for a not-yet-complete or invalid audit id, which would have been the last useful detail.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what the agent receives, the second tells it what to do with the result. No filler, no restating of the tool name or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and largely discharges it by naming the grade, levels table, and per-failure prompt text. The remaining gap is failure modes — what an agent gets for a non-existent or incomplete audit — which matters for a lookup keyed on an external id.

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 coverage is 100% and the single audit_id parameter carries a format pattern and a worked example (BA-7NRZ26D4), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond the word 'completed', so baseline 3 applies.

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 states precisely what the tool returns — grade, a levels table with severity and breaks, and per-failed-level details plus prompt text — and scopes it to a 'completed' audit, which separates it from get_audit_status and list_audits by implication. It never uses an explicit retrieval verb and doesn't name those two siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Use it to propose the fix in the agent's code, then re-run start_audit to check' gives a concrete downstream workflow and names the sibling to call afterwards. The 'completed' qualifier implies when it applies, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with get_audit_status for in-progress audits or says what happens if the audit isn't finished.

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