audit_all_clients

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only, returns nothing when everything passes, returns a list of findings when issues exist, and includes the client name with each finding. This is useful behavioral transparency, though it does not detail the output format or the exact nature of the checks.

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 opens with a clear one-line purpose, but the subsequent paragraphs contain rhetorical flourishes ('The thing an operator actually wants running', 'Nobody runs thirteen checks by hand') that add tone rather than essential information. It could be more concise without losing meaning.

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?

The description conveys the overall behavior and result style but omits specifics such as what constitutes a failure, which mail configuration aspects are audited, and the exact output structure. Since there is no output schema, these details are left to inference, leaving moderate gaps 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?

The only parameter, dkim_selector, is fully described in the input schema, so the tool description adds no additional meaning. The schema description is sufficient: it explains the default and when to change it.

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 clearly states the tool checks every client at once and reports only issues, and it distinguishes itself from find_across_clients by being an audit rather than a search. However, the exact types of checks performed (e.g., DKIM, SPF, DMARC) are not explicitly enumerated, leaving some ambiguity about the audit scope.

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 this should be used when an operator wants a proactive, aggregate health check across all clients and contrasts it with manually checking each client. It does not explicitly compare against siblings like ask_across_clients or work_on_client, so the when-to-use guidance is somewhat implicit rather than fully explicit.

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