improve_app

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds real context beyond them: no project code is executed, no automatic changes are made, no unmeasured performance claims are produced, and unassessed areas are reported explicitly. Only the source and freshness of the 'existing findings' remains undisclosed.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by scope exclusions and a disclosure guarantee. Every sentence carries information; there is no filler, though the negation clauses are slightly dense.

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 explains the output artifact well and covers behavioral scope, which is important given there is no output schema. However, for an aggregator tool it never states where the 'existing findings' come from or whether prior sibling runs are a prerequisite, leaving a meaningful workflow 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (path, offline) are documented in the schema, including the network lookups the offline flag suppresses. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb (prioritize) and a concrete resource (existing security, crash, accessibility, performance, store and dependency findings) and specifies the artifact produced (a review plan with prerequisites, expected effects and validation). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like security_audit, scan_project or upgrade_plan, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'existing ... findings' hints that this tool consumes results produced elsewhere, but no alternative is named and no condition for choosing this tool over security_audit, upgrade_plan or scan_project is given. The agent is left to infer when this step belongs in the workflow.

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