codesafe_audit_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the data source (auditState field) and does not reveal whether the tool is read-only, how it behaves for invalid task IDs, error handling, or rate limits. The word 'summarize' hints at a read operation, 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 a single, concise sentence of 11 words, with no filler, no repetition, and all information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema that likely describes return values. The description gives a basic purpose but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral transparency. It is adequate for a basic status tool but leaves ambiguity about what task_id identifies and the exact content of the summary, making it incomplete for full autonomous use.

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 schema defines task_id as an integer, but the description does not explain what task_id refers to (e.g., that it represents the report ID). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate by clarifying the parameter, but it does not add any meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'summarize' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a report's audit progress', sourced from the 'platform auditState field'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like codesafe_audit_bug or codesafe_submit_audit, which are about auditing bugs or submitting audits, not summarizing status.

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 the tool is used when a report's audit progress is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage direction.

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