audit_yarn_integrity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the audit domains and system-wide scope, implying a non-mutating read operation, but it does not state return format, side effects, or potential runtime cost. This is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource, then enumerates the audited areas. Every phrase adds meaningful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter audit tool, the description gives sufficient context about what areas are inspected. The absence of an output schema is not fully compensated by describing return values, but the low complexity and clear scope make the definition 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this dimension is well satisfied by the description's scope statement.

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 uses the specific verb 'Audit' and names the exact resource scope: 'system-wide yarn health, runtime dependencies, layer overrides, and schemas.' This clearly identifies what the tool operates on and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which target yarn integrity.

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 conveys a clear read-only audit context and system-wide scope, so an agent can infer when to invoke it for health/integrity checks. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but no sibling tool overlaps with yarn auditing, so alternatives are not needed.

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