audit_privacy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It describes what is detected but not the operation's side effects or constraints.

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 sentences convey the full purpose and scope with no redundant words. The description is efficiently front-loaded with the verb 'Run a comprehensive privacy audit' followed by specific details.

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 has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality, checks, and regulations. It lacks behavioral context but is otherwise complete for an audit 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the audit covers (trackers, consent, etc.), but it does not add detail to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides.

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 specifies the tool's purpose as running a comprehensive privacy audit on a website, listing specific checks (trackers, cookie consent, privacy policy, forms) and regulations (GDPR, CCPA, ePrivacy). It clearly distinguishes from narrower sibling tools like scan_trackers or check_consent.

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 implies the tool is for full audits but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., scan_trackers for specific trackers). No when-not guidance is provided, but the context of 'comprehensive' gives some implicit direction.

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