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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by naming exactly what gets destroyed ('Overwrites vdd/tactics.md'), stating the hard prerequisite file, and disclosing the environmental requirement (filesystem-capable host, scan of the repo). This is the mutation-safety context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with phase, action, and artifact, then prerequisites and routing. The trailing parameter-relationships sentence partially duplicates the schema text and the earlier prerequisite mention, which is slight redundancy but not damaging.

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?

An output schema and annotations exist, so return values and the safety profile are covered structurally; the description fills in the sequencing, prerequisite, and host-capability gaps. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single projectRoot parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the 'keep the same value across every phase' consistency rule. The description's note that projectRoot must match vdd_init/vdd_vision/vdd_strategize largely restates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (audit) plus resource (existing codebase) and names the exact artifact produced (vdd/tactics.md) with its contents enumerated. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like vdd_strategize or vdd_specify by the phase label and output file.

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?

Explicit ordering ('run after vdd_strategize and before vdd_specify'), an explicit prerequisite (requires vdd/strategy.md), and a routing hint to vdd_detect_environment when the host may lack filesystem access. When/when-not and alternatives are all present.

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