estimate_audit

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is cheap, does not run full mutation test, returns approximate mutant count, specifies fidelity for Rust vs. others, and details the withTiming option for running the test suite once.

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, well-structured paragraph of three sentences. It front-loads the key message ('Cheap pre-flight estimate...'), provides technical details, and ends with usage advice. No extraneous words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately omits return value details. It covers purpose, usage, parameter effects, and behavioral nuances. The sibling mentions further complete the context.

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 description adds meaning beyond the 100% schema coverage. For filePath, it specifies 'Path to the source file to estimate.' For withTiming, it explains the trade-off between count-only and including a test run, including estimation formula. This clarifies parameter intent and impact.

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: 'Cheap pre-flight estimate of how big/long auditing a file will be, WITHOUT running the full mutation test cycle.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'audit_code_resilience' by emphasizing the cost advantage and pre-flight nature.

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 guidance is provided: 'Use this before audit_code_resilience to decide whether to audit now, scope down, or skip.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool vs. the sibling, including decision-making criteria.

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