agentpr_guard_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the three detection categories (hallucinated packages, typosquatting, boundary breaches), which is real behavioral content, but it omits whether the audit is read-only, what permissions it needs, or whether it produces side effects.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It efficiently packs verb, resource, and detection scope into one line.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what an audit returns (findings, severity, report format), but it does not. Combined with the absence of annotations, an agent gets no sense of the shape or nature of the result.

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% and the single parameter is fully described in the schema as a 'Unified git diff string to audit.' The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, and its mention of 'Pull Request' is not reflected in the required diff parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (Audit), a specific resource (git diff or Pull Request), and enumerates exactly what it looks for: AI-hallucinated packages, typosquatting, and architecture boundary breaches. No sibling tool overlaps, so an agent can identify it instantly.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information. The description says what the tool does but never tells the agent under what circumstances it should be preferred or avoided.

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