security_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. While it explains the level and required schema, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has performance implications. Basic behavioral traits are disclosed but not comprehensively.

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 concise with a clear lead sentence, followed by structured sections (LEVEL, REQUIRED, USE FOR, DO NOT USE FOR, INCLUDE, Examples). Every sentence adds necessary information without waste.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, parameters, usage guidelines, and examples sufficiently for the complexity of a security audit tool. The examples further clarify usage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'schema' parameter requirement ('use 'all' for all schemas or a specific schema name') and providing usage examples. It also enumerates the 'include' options in a list, though that is already in the schema.

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 audits roles, privileges, RLS, SSL, and security definer functions. It also explicitly lists use cases and excludes PII detection and data quality, distinguishing it from siblings like sensitive_data_scan.

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 includes 'USE FOR' and 'DO NOT USE FOR' sections with concrete contexts and alternatives, such as explicitly naming sensitive_data_scan. It also specifies when to use 'all' vs a specific schema and provides requirements.

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