ansible-security-audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The term 'audit' implies non-destructiveness, but this is not explicit.

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 short and has a clear structure with an Args list, but the initial sentence is generic. It is appropriately sized but could be more informative without adding length.

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 having an output schema, the description does not explain the return value or the scope of the audit (e.g., what is covered under each category). The tool has 6 parameters, and the description leaves many behavioral details unspecified.

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 Args section provides brief descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Target hosts pattern'), but these are minimal and add only basic meaning beyond the schema. Given 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but lacks detail like accepted values for audit_categories.

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 'Comprehensive security audit and vulnerability assessment,' indicating the tool's function of auditing security. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ansible-diagnose-host or ansible-health-monitor, which may also assess security aspects.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The description lacks context for selection among many sibling tools.

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