hcl_audit_security

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description correctly focuses on what annotations cannot convey: credentials are not exported, an empty device falls back to staged non-PC bindings rather than a full native inventory, and Cisco rules / unknown storage algorithms block a secure=true verdict. This is substantive operating context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short lines, purpose front-loaded, with no filler sentences. Some phrasing is compressed to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is redundant.

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 and zero schema descriptions for four parameters, the description should explain the required project_path/topology inputs and what an audit result (secure verdict plus findings) looks like. It hints at the verdict logic but leaves the majority of the calling contract undocumented.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only partially clarifies 'device' (empty selects staged non-PC bindings); 'topology', 'project_path', and 'timeout_seconds' are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving required parameters without meaning.

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?

It names a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('running Comware configuration posture'), but the wording is jargon-heavy ('bound', 'posture') and never plainly states what the audit produces. It is distinguishable from hcl_health_check or hcl_verify_connectivity only by inference, not by an explicit statement of 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 second sentence describes behavior when 'device' is empty, which is closer to semantics than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the many sibling audit/inspection tools (hcl_validate_plan, hcl_health_check, hcl_parity_report), and no prerequisites are given.

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