audit_contract

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It transparently describes the multi-pass process and specifies return values (severity, SWC id, etc., risk score 0-100, summary). No mention of side effects or destructive behavior, but the tool is read-only by nature.

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?

Three sentences: process, outputs, usage. Front-loaded with key information, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, it covers the audit process and outputs well. Minor gaps: no mention of runtime, limits, or error handling, but overall sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage on both parameters, and description adds practical context: source accepts pastes, file dumps, multi-contract files; contractName inferred when omitted. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a 3-pass audit of a Solidity source file (recon, deep scan, severity scoring) and returns structured findings plus risk score. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_vulnerability (single check), gas_optimization, and generate_report.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this as the default entry point when reviewing a contract,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but the strong recommendation suffices.

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