prompt_injection_audit

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

The description explicitly states behavioral traits: 'Pure function. No LLM call, no I/O, no chaining.' This goes beyond what annotations (none) provide, giving full transparency about side effects and resource usage.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement and a bullet list of findings. It is not overly verbose, though the bulleted details could be slightly more compact. Still, each sentence provides 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?

The description covers the tool's findings comprehensively but provides minimal detail about the output ('Structured AuditReport') and does not explain how results are structured or what to do with them. Given no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by defining the 'prompt' parameter as 'The system prompt or template text.' This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare input 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Statically analyze a system prompt / template for prompt-injection surface.' It lists specific findings (placeholders, missing delimiters, dangerous patterns, precedence inversion), distinguishing it from sibling audit tools like mcp_server_audit or agent_tool_risk_audit.

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 when to use (analyze prompts for injection vulnerabilities) but does not explicitly state when not to use or how it compares to alternatives. It lacks guidance on context (e.g., before deployment, during code review).

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