security_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at needing sudo access (via 'sudo_password' parameter) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how long it takes, or what changes it might make. Mid-level transparency.

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 sentence listing audit items, which is concise but lacks structural elements like line breaks or bullets that could improve readability for an AI agent.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention the output format, error handling, or side effects. For a complex comprehensive audit tool, this leaves significant gaps in 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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the 'alias' or 'sudo_password' parameters beyond their names. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly use the parameters.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'security audit', and lists specific security checks (open ports, users, SSH config, etc.), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'system_info' or 'check_updates_security'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as individual security-related tools (e.g., 'fail2ban_status', 'harden_ssh'). Lacks context on prerequisites or situations where a comprehensive audit is appropriate.

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