audit_notifies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose whether this is read-only, what the audit outputs, whether it performs side effects, or how it handles edge cases. 'Audit' is vague and could imply anything from a summary report to a detailed analysis. No behavioral traits beyond the verb are disclosed.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus two argument clarifications. It front-loads the core purpose and spends no words on fluff. Every line earns its place; the formatting is clean and scannable.

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?

Despite an output schema being present (which covers return values), the tool is otherwise underspecified. With only 2 optional params and no annotations, the description is minimally viable for triggering a simple audit operation, but it lacks detail on expected behavior, limitations, and relationship to sibling tools. It is complete enough for basic invocation but leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: asset_path is a specific asset, folder is a folder to scan, and omitting asset_path triggers a folder scan. This compensates partially, though it doesn't clarify interaction when both are provided or whether either is required. The description adds value over the bare schema, meeting the minimum viable threshold.

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 states 'Audit notify usage across animations' with a specific verb 'audit' and resource 'notify usage across animations', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_notify or get_anim_notifies. However, it lacks detail on what auditing entails (e.g., counts, duplicates, unused notifies), preventing a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The Args section implies a folder scan vs. specific asset selection, but there is no indication of when to prefer this tool over search_by_notify or get_anim_notifies, nor any exclusion criteria. The guidance is entirely parameter-focused, not tool-selection-focused.

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