audit_security

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

Explicitly states 'Read-only' and enumerates the specific checks performed, providing behavioral context despite no annotations. Does not mention potential side effects, but read-only covers the main risk.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the audit target, then lists checks, and ends with read-only. No wasted words.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose, scope, and read-only nature; output schema exists for return details. For a single-parameter read-only audit, this is adequate.

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?

Input schema fully documents the single 'path' parameter with default and usage guidance; description adds no param details beyond schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states it audits a local repo for baseline security CI hygiene, listing specific checks (gitleaks, CodeQL, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling audit tools (audit_release, audit_cd, audit_instructions) via the security focus.

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?

Implies usage for security CI hygiene validation against the Starter Series quality bar, but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings or provide exclusion criteria.

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