alethia_audit_nist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds context beyond this: it operates on 'the current page', checks 8 specified controls across 3 families, and returns findings with control IDs and severity levels. This gives the agent a clear model of what the tool does without contradicting the read-only hint.

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 composed of three concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second details the specific controls, and the third gives usage guidance and output expectations. Every sentence earns its place with relevant information and no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately mentions 'Returns findings with control IDs and severity levels,' covering return value expectations. It also explains the scope and usage context. It does not describe edge cases or prerequisites beyond navigation, but for a zero-parameter, read-only audit tool, this is a solid and complete description.

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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description explains the tool's behavior and output even though there are no parameters to document, providing sufficient semantic context for invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Run a NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 web application security controls audit on the current page.' It clearly states the standard (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5), the target (current page), and lists the exact control families (AC, IA, SI) with sample checks. This distinguishes it from the sibling alethia_audit_wcag by specifying a distinct standard and domain.

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 instruction 'Call after navigating with alethia_tell' provides an explicit when-to-use context. It also implies the tool is for security audits, differentiating it from accessibility audits (alethia_audit_wcag). However, it does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or alternative tools by name, so it stops short of a 5.

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